
/ dicd^ 



:^3^ 



a. 



Dfl 680 
.K8 
Copy 1 



The Lord Mayor 

and 

Aldermen of London 

during the 

Tudor Period 



A THESIS 



Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Philosophy of the University 

of Pennsylvania, in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for 

the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



BY 

MARGARET R. KOLLOCK, A. B. 

PHILADELPHIA 
1906 



PHILADELPHIA 

THE JOHN C. WINSTON CO 
1906 






Gift 

OUBB^ie In, 

SEP 2Vl^? 






V s^ 



Chapter I. 
THE CITY. 

During the Tudor period London attained that definite 
preeminence, intellectually, commercially, socially, and polit- 
ically which it has ever since retained. The Lord Mayor and 
Aldermen are as familiar personages in the Elizabethan drama 
as they are in the statutes of the realm, in the charters of the 
commercial companies, in the observation of foreign visitors and 
in the attention of the sovereign and the privy council. The 
form of government was by this time definitely established. The 
city had, however, no especial document which defined its rights 
and privileges, detenuined its government, or prescribed the 
manner of election of its ofiicials. Instead, it had a great body 
of separate charters which had been granted to it from time to 
time by succeeding sovereigns, around which many traditions 
and customs had grown. A survey of these charters, from that 
of the Conqueror with its meager and indefinite grant, to that 
of Edward VI with its gift of Southwark, shows how, little by 
little, the constitutional powers of the city had grown. 

Besides the promise that the son should succeed to his 
father's advantages, William I granted to the city the privilege 
that its burghers, French and English, should be considered law 
worthy.^ An undated charter granted by Henry I to the city 
added considerably to the privileges of the Londoners.^ By this 
document London was recognized as a unity, distinct and sepa- 
rate from the shire in which it was situated, and was placed 
upon a footing similar to that of the countries of the realm. 
More privileged than the shires, however, it was given Middle- 
sex to farm, with the privilege of electing its sheriff and justices. 
It was also declared free from the jurisdiction of all ofiicials 

^Historical Charters (ed. Birch), 1. 
"Ibid., 3. 

(3) 



except those of its own choice. In addition, the Londoners were 
exempt from toll throughout England. 

Following these grants of Henry, there was no great en- 
largement of the privileges of the city until the time of John. 
Except for the grant of the conservancy of the Thames by 
Richard,^ the charters given by Henry II, without date, and 
Richard I in 1194,* were in a large measure confirmatory gi*ants 
of exemption from toll. With the fifth charter given by John 
in 1115 the citizens were authorized to choose their mayor. 
They were permitted to keep him in ofiice for as long a period 
as they desired, removing him at the end of a year if they saw 
fit, or retaining him for a longer time if they wished. It was 
necessary, however, that he should be presented to the king, or, 
in case of his absence, to the justiciar, when the oath of loyalty 
should be administered to him.^ 

After this a considerable period of time again elapsed 
before any marked additions were made to the municipal 
privileges. It was in 1827, over a century later, that Edward 
III gave to the city the first of his important charters. While 
a number of royal grants had been made to the city by inter- 
vening sovereigns, they w^ere, on the whole, merely confirmatory. 
During Henry Ill's long reign nine separate charters were 
given to the city, five in 1227, and one in 1247, in 1253, in 
1266 and in 1268.*' Edward I in 1298, for the greater con- 
venience of the citizens, declared that they might present the 
mayor and sheriffs to the constable of Tower, in case the king 
and the barons of the exchequer should be absent from West- 
minster.'^ The first charter of Edw^ard II in 1319 consisted of 
a number of articles which had been agreed upon by the citizens, 
and which, being submitted to the king for confirmation, had 
been ratified by him. These articles refer to the election and 
duties of the officers of the city and to the admission to the 

*Historiral Charters, 9. 

*Ibid., 4-10. 

^ThifJ.. 19. 

"Ihid.. 21-30, 32. 34, 36, 38. 

Ubid., 43. 



freedom of the city."^ The following year Edward granted a 
second charter, which declared that the military service ren- 
dered by the citizens of London in besieging the castle of Leeds 
in Kent should not be used as a precedent.^ With the first 
charter of Edward III the freedom of the city, regarding the 
non-entrance of crown officials was enhanced by making the 
mayor not only one of the justices of jail delivery of ISTewgate, 
but escheator and clerk of the market. 

The exemption of the city from the interference of royal 
officials was not again increased until Edward IV's reign. Prior 
to this time Edward III had granted five additional charters, 
in 1327, 1337, 1354, and two in 1376.^« According to the 
grant of 1327 the citizens were given some slight control over 
Southwark, but the others, as well as the grants made by Richard 
II in 1377 and 1383,^^ added but little to the privileges of the 
citizens. In 1462, however, it was declared that the mayor, 
recorder, and those aldermen who had served as mayor should 
be justices of the peace and justices of oyer and terminer for 
London. ^^ The same charter confirmed the grant of the Bor- 
ough of Southwark with the right of waifs, strays and treasure 
trove and the assize of bread and beer. The citizens were also 
granted the right of holding an annual fair wuthin the borough, 
with a court of Pie powder. ^^ Yet another privilege was added 
by Edward's fourth charter, granted in 1478, which declared 
that no royal coroner might enter the city, as the right of ap- 
pointing such officers belonged to the mayor and citizens. ^^ At 
the same time the officers of package, scavage, carriage, portage 
and garbling were granted to the city.^"^ By the first charter of 
the same king tronage had been given to London. Henry VII in 
1504 added the office of ganger to this list, at the same time 

^Historical Chai-tcrs, 45-50. 
'IMd., 51. 

^"11)1 d., m. CA. (\p,. r>5. 
"/&/r/., m. 71. 

"/hif/., 75. 
"ZhtW., 80. 82. 
"/buZ., 02. 
^'lUd., 91. 



confirming the mayor's right to exact forfeiture from all mer- 
chant strangers trafficking by wholesale within the city with the 
intention of selling again. -^^ 

Henry YIII gave two charters to the citizens, in 1518 and 
1531.-''^ The first declared that the justices of oyer and terminer 
should hold their inquisitions in the Guildhall or any other place 
which the justices should think convenient. The third dealt 
with the office of tronage. This had been granted to the city 
by Henry IV, Edward IV, yet in 1521 Henry VIII granted 
the great beam and common balance to Sir William Sidney, 
who kept in for ten years. At the end of that time he returned 
the gift to the king, in order that it might again be given to the 
city. By the charter of 1531 Henry declared that the office of 
ancient right belonged to the citizens. This was practically the 
last grant of privilege prior to the end of the Tudor rule, for 
the charter of Edward VI, though granting the much needed 
jurisdiction over Southwark, gave to the city no additional 
privileges of government. ^^ 

That the citizens held the charters in great esteem may be 
readily seen in the energy they displayed in resenting any act 
which seemed to infringe upon their immunities or rights. The 
privy council learning, in 1579, that the mayor was not carry- 
ing out to its full extent Elizabeth's proclamation against eating 
of meat during Lent, attempted to send some of the crown 
officials into London to examine into the matter. They were 
compelled to retire, however, on account of the great opposition 
of the citizens. Later the privy council wrote to the mayor that, 
as the lords were loath to prejudice the Londoners in their gov- 
ernment and liberties, they would be satisfied if he would send 
to them an account of the steps he had taken to prevent the 
proclamation's being broken. ^^ Again in 1580, when troops 
were being levied, a commission Avas sent to the city as a town 
corporate instead of as a shire. The mayor refused to act upon 

^^Historical Charters, 05. 

"/&/V7., 97, 99. 

^Uhid., 111-127. 

^^Acts of the Prill/ Council 1378-1580, 14. 



it and sent a letter to the Lord Chancellor urging that a new 
commission be issued. The next day the mayor wrote to Sir 
Francis Walsingham that the Lord Chancellor had declared that, 
in his opinion, a new commission should be issued.^*^ 

In order to understand the duties and work of the officials 
of London it is necessary to know something of the city itself; 
its extent ; its division into wards ; its inhabitants, its citizens 
and apprentices, and their treatment of the strangers. We are 
fortunate in having the material for obtaining a good idea of the 
extent of the city in the Tudor period in Stow's ''Survey" and 
in a series of contemporary maps. In Agas's and ISTorton'a 
maps the walls of the city show so plainly that the distinction 
between "London without the walls and London within the 
walls"^^ can be easily understood. The latter part of the 
expression refers to the land outside the walls, which it was 
necessary for the city to possess for its own protection. By the 
time of Henry VIII the jurisdiction of the city extended two 
miles beyond the walls. ^^ The limits were determined in a 
large measure by the six gates which were still standing at this 
time. The bars without Aldgate, Bishopsgate, Aldersgate and 
Ludgate as well as Temple Bar determined the extent of the 
city's jurisdiction.^^ Without Cripplegate and Moregate were 
the posts which marked the limits of the city to the north. ^^ 
With these marks as guides the extent of the city, except for 
the part nearest the Tower, was well defined. 

The indefinite marking of the city's limits at this place led 
to frequent strife between the mayor and the lieutenant of the 
Tower. When these disagreements reached serious proportions, 
the privy council took control. Thus in 1552 the council 
appointed a committee to examine into the quarrel and arrange 
a means of bringing it to a speedy conclusion. ^^ In 1565 an 

'^Rcmemhroncia. 231. 

"Camden, Britannia, 391. 

^Statutes of the Realm, 14, 15, H. VIII, 2. 

=«Stow, Survey of London, 145, 179, 291. 344. 

^/&jff.. 281. 280. 

='A. P. C, 1552-1554, 88, 115. 



' 8 

extended dispute arose on account of the mayor's order that his 
sword of state should precede him to the gate of the Tower. As 
the lieutenant considered the gate within his jurisdiction, he 
ordered the sword to be lowered. ^"^ The mayor complained to 
the lords of the council, who directed each of the contestants to 
respect the other's liberties until the dispute could be satisfac- 
torily arranged.-" The matter could not have been definitely 
settled, for in 1582 the mayor's sword was again the cause of 
contention. That year the mayor took his oath of office at the 
Tower, at the gate of which the wardens compelled the sword 
bearer to lower the mayor's sign of authority.-*^ The lieutenant 
must have felt that the lords of the council were looking at the 
matter from his point of view, for less than a month later he was 
particularly daring in asserting his claims to the land. At the 
perambulation which was taken in ils'ovember for the purpose of 
marking off the limits of the lieutenant's authority, he had pales 
and rails broken in gardens belonging to Londoners. So incensed 
were the people that it was with difficulty that a general rising 
of the citizens against the lieutenant was averted. ^^ In spite of 
these grievances the question remained unsettled, and the year 
following the discussion broke out again. At this time it was 
the lieutenant who felt himself aggrieved. He complained to 
the council regarding the mayor's act of leasing the land on 
Tower Hill. He not only claimed that such an act was an 
infringement upon his jurisdiction, but also complained of the 
fact that persons to whom the land had been leased had built 
stables there. This he regarded as dangerous to the imperial 
^astle.^*^ Almost ten years after this the old animosity broke 
out again. The dispute at this time had arisen from the arrest 
for debt of one of the wardens of the Tower by the sheriffs of 
London. Immediately after three citizens of London were 
seized by the lieutenant of the Tower by writ of withernam. 

=«A. P. C, 1558-1570, 266. 

■'''Ibid.. 1558-1570, 309. 

^'Reraem., 429. 

^'lUd., 434. 

^"Calendar of State Papers, 1581-1590, 218. 



The city gained its point at this time, for the privy council 
ordered the release of the Londoners and the detention of the 
warden until his debt should be paid.^^ A few years later 
persons were imprisoned by the officers of both districts on 
account of the discussion regarding the ownership of the land. 
As a result of this the pri\^ council took some definite action. 
The recorder and chamberlain of the city were summoned before 
them, and the matter was discussed with two members of the 
council. The result of the conference was that both the mayor 
and the lords were ordered to free their respective prisoners.^ ^ 
As there was no further discussion of the question during this 
period, it is judged that this conference reached satisfactory 
conclusions. 

In addition to the strife over the boundary at this eastern 
limit of the city, there was occasionally some contest over the 
mayor's jurisdiction over Southwark. During the later Tudor 
period the Londoners tried to make that part of Southwark 
which had been granted to them what Edward had evidently 
intended by his charter^'^— a corporate part of the city. London 
bridge offered so easy a means of escape for the criminals that 
it was imperative that the mayor's power extend into that part 
of ''the borough"-^^ Avliich was directly connected with the bridge. 
Hence the citizens were perfectly willing to pay the king the 
money he asked for the land. ' The charter granting them the 
land gave them the additional privilege of appointing the 
coroners and constables for the district, and of imprisoning 
thieves in ISTewgate. The fact that the borough was located in 
the county of Surrey gave rise to considerable difiieulty at times 
when it was necessary to make drafts for service in the army. 
In January, 1558, letters were sent by the privy council to the 
Lord Lieutenant of Surrey, stating that complaints were coming 
from the inhabitants of the borough because, although pressed 

^'A. P. C, 1596-1597, 413. 

^Historical Charters, III. 

^In all contemporary records Southwark is spoken of as "The Bor- 
ough of Southwark." 



10 



into service by the Londoners, they were also charged with the 
levies made by Surrey. The council, accordingly, directed the 
lieutenant to release all those who, dwelling within the liberties 
of London, had been appointed to serve by the city.^^ 

In 1590 the justices of the peace of Surrey and the Lord 
Mayor of London had an extended argument over land which 
was claimed by each set of officers as appertaining to its juris- 
diction. The justices declared that the Lord Mayor was exceed- 
ing the limits of the charter, while the city officials complained 
that the shire officials had asserted authority over land over 
which they had no control.^** The committee appointed by the 
privy council to determine the contest must have reported in 
favor of London, for a month later the council wrote to the mayor 
authorizing him to arrest any butchers dwelling in Southwark 
who w^ere guilty of violating Elizabeth's proclamation regardirg 
the sale of meat during Lent.^'^ And again a year later the 
council wrote to the Lord Admiral stating that as the Lord 
Mayor claimed to have jurisdiction in part of Southwark he 
was to prevent his officials from proceeding to any executions 
in that part of the borough which appertained to the city.^^ 

The question of jurisdiction was not limited to the external 
boundaries of the city. Within London there were certain 
places over which the mayor had no control. These districts 
were either dissolved monasteries and the lands belonging to 
them, or lands which had come into the possession of the crown 
in some other way. The inhabitants of these districts jealously 
guarded their rights, and strife was bound to ensue. For this 
there were several causes — the escape of prisoners from the arm 
of municipal justice to the security of the liberties; the calling 
upon the inhabitants of the privileged districts to contribute td 
the number of soldiers which London was compelled to raise in 
time of war; and the conflict of opinion regarding the spot 



^=A. P. C. 1556-1558. 241. 
"/&u/.. 1589-1590, 370. 
^Uhid., 1.590-1591. 322. 
"^Ihid, 1590-1591, 307. 



II 



wliere the jurisdiction of the head officer of the specified district 
began and the mayor's ended. 

In an undated petition of Elizabeth's reign the Lord Mayor 
urged the privy council to appoint two chief justices to examine 
into the rights, the franchises and the liberties of the lately 
dissolved monasteries of Black Friars, White Friars and Christ 
Church, as these districts were the resort of criminals and 
seditious persons. ^^ Several times between 1574 and 1580 the 
privy council was called upon to settle disputes between White 
Friars and the city.^^ In order to adjust the matter the lords of 
the council called representatives of each district before them,'*^ 
but no conclusion seems to have been reached, for in 1580 the 
inhabitants refused to admit the mayor's officers, declaring they 
held directly from the queen.'* ^ 

Wliile the dissolved monasteries offered themselves as places 
of refuge to persons desirous of avoiding the municipal officers, 
it was to "Cold Harbor" that the greatest number of criminils 
betook themselves in order to escape the jurisdiction of the city 
courts.^^ This house, coming into the hands of Henry VITI, 
was given to him by Doctor Tunstall, Bishop of Durham, in 
exchange for Durham House on the Strand."*^ When the bishop 
was condemned in Edward's time the land came again into royal 
hands. The young king gave it to the Earl of Shrewsbury, who 
with a large following frequently spent several days at the place. 
The size of the house can be judged by the number of men who 
accompanied the earl on these visits to his house, in 1554 there 
were sixscore horse, and thirty men with him, and in 1569 
there were a hundred men accompanying him.^^ The house was 
destroyed by his heir, who built in its place a number of small 
tenements, which he leased to all sorts and conditions of people. ^^' 

'"Historical MSS. Conmiissioners' Report, Salisbury Pai)evs, VII, 005. 

*»A. P. C, 1.371-1575, 240, 2.57. 

"Ihid, 1577-1578, 429. 

"IhiiL, 1.580-1.581, 10. 

*'Ihi(J., 1597-1508, 424, 410. 

"Stow, I. c. 2.37: Wriotliesley Chroiiiclr, II. 65. 

'"Machyn's Diary, 74, 224. 258. .300. 

*" Hist. MSS. Com., Salisbury Papers, V, 139. 



12 



There are frequent references to the district as a place of refuge 
in the dramas of the period.^'^ In Middleton's play, A Trick to 
Catch the Old One, Lucre says to his nephew: 

'Tear neither beadle nor summoner, an uncle's house 
A very Cold Harbor I"^« 

In 1580 Burghley complained to the alderman of Aldersgate 
Ward regarding the entrance of his deputy into the lil)erty of 
Saint Martin le Grand, in order to impress men into sendee in 
the army. He demanded that steps be taken to prevent such 
action in the future, as the place was no part of the city liberty.^ ^ 
But during the war with Spain, when the Lord Mayor was 
required to raise a large number of men to aid in the defense of 
of the kingdom, letters were sent by the privy council to the 
officers of all the privileged districts bidding them contribute 
to the levy. In 1588, Avhen the Spanish invasion of England 
seemed imminent, the mayor was ordered to raise 10,000 men.^^ 
A year later the mayor was again authorized to enter the privi- 
leged districts, but was permitted to levy a specified number only 
from each district. In 1597 the liberty of Saint Katherine's 
alone w^as called upon to aid the city in obtaining the required 
number of men for the levy.^^ When great levies of men were 
made in 1598 for the army to be sent to Ireland it was learned 
that the privileged districts not only refused to contribute, but 
they harbored those persons who, seeking to avoid impress- 
ment, had had recourse thither. The privy council therefore 
directed the mayor to require the officers of the liberties not only 
to supply luen and money, but also to deliver to him any persons 
who should be hiding themselves there.^^ 

With regard to the question of ownership of adjacent prop- 
erty there was apt to be considerable bitterness. In 1589 the 

"Stow (ed. 1033). 80. 

*«Jonson. The ^Silent Woman, II, 3; Middleton, A Trick to Catch the 
Old One, II. 1. 

^''Renieni., 4^^S. 
^"A. r. C, 1587-1588. 428. 
"IhnL, 1588-1589, 118. 
'-Ibid, 1598-1599, 414, 415. 



13 

strife between the company of goldsmiths and the Dean of St. 
Panl's was particnlarly intense. The dispute was due to some 
land near a stone wall which was claimed by each. When 
brought up for trial it was decided by the jury that the land 
belonged to tlie dean and chapter, as they had held it for 400 
years.^^ 

In 1507 Lord Rich in writing to Sir Robert Cecil stated 
that he had been informed that during his absence the Lord 
Mayor had made com])laints against certain of his tenants, who 
had been building in the liberty of St. Bartholomew. He urged 
that the suit might be delayed .until he could be present to 
answer for his tenants.^''* 

Although the solution of the problem was not reached 
strictly within the Tudor period, it was in 1608, but a few 
years after the death of Elizabeth, that James, evidently real- 
izing the anomalous conditions, enlarged the limits of the civio 
jurisdiction by comprising within it Blackfriars, Whitefriars, 
Cold Ilarlior, Groat and Little St. Bartholomew, and Duke's 
Place. 

Turning now to that part of London which was under the 
control of the city, we find that, for municipal purposes, it was 
divided into twenty-six wards of various sizes and unequal 
shapes. Prior to the reign of Richard IT there were but 
twenty-four, bnt in ^^'^\)'^ Farringdon ward was divided into two 
parts.-"'''' Xo further change took place in the number until 
1550, when Southwark was purchased and "Bridge Ward 
Without" was formed. ^''^ This ward, however, never attained 
an equal footing with the older districts. Though represented 
in the court of aldermen, its aldenuan was not elected as were 
those of the otlier wards. Tn addition to this it was without 
representation in the court of common council.''*'^ 

The wards were represented in the general municipal gov- 

^^A. P. r.. 1.588-1580, 1,30. 

•■'Hist. :MSS. Com. Rei)t.. Salishury Papers, VIII, 429. 
"Pnrlianientnr.v Rolls, 17 R. II, 12. 
••^'Ilist. Charters, 110. 
. "Stow, .382. 



14 

ernment in two ways. The chamber of aldermen was composed 
of twenty-six members,^ ^ each representing one of the w^ards. 
The chamber of common council consisted of 214 members, the 
representation varying in different wards.^'' 'No ward had less 
than four representatives, while two had sixteen, and several 
had six, eight and nine. 

In addition to its participation in the general government, 
each ward had its own set of officials residing in the ward.''*^ 
Usually there was but one alderman's deputy for each ward, but 
in Bridge Ward Without there were three, and in Bishopsgate*^^ 
there were two, one acting for the alderman without and the 
other acting; for him within the walls. Then there were the 
constables of the wards, differing greatly in number. ^^ In 
certain parts of the city there were as many as sixteen or seven- 
teen constables to a ward, while CornhilP^ and Lime Street 
Ward'^'* had but four each. The number of scavangers differed 
with each ward, as did also the wardmotemen.^^ 

At the close of his description of each ward, Stow gives 
the amount at which it was rated for the collection of the fif- 
teenth. These figures show that some few of the wards were 
required to advance more when the money was for the use of 
the city, than they did when a subsidy for the use of the nation 
was collected. Sometimes the difference was slight, 5, 6 or 10 
shillings more being paid to the chamber of London than to the 
exchequer.^*^ In Cheap Ward, however, there was considerable 
difference in the amount paid at the two places. It was rated 
at London for the collection of the fifteenth at £72 16s., while 
at the exchequer but £52 lls.^'^ The figures also show that there 
was no connection between the wealth of the ward and its 

■^Stow, passim. 

'^Ihid., 382. 

'UNd., 188. 

'^IMd., passim. 

«^/&trf., 208. 

"Vbif/., 179. 

'^Ibid, passim. 

'"Ibid., 197, 217, 255, 269. 296. 329. 3.37, 344. 

'Ubid., 269. 



15 

representation in the common council. Cordwainer Street 
Ward, which was rated at £52, had eight common council- 
men,^^ while Lime Street Ward, rated at £1 19s. 2d. 3far., 
had four common councilmen,®'^ and Farringdon Ward Within, 
rated at £50, had twelve common councilmen,'^*^ and Cripple- 
gate Ward, rated at £40, had eight common councilmen,'^ ^ and 
Candlewick Street, with the same number of common council- 
men, was rated at ^£16.'^^ 

Of far greater importance than the division of the city into 
wards was the part played by the companies in the government 
of the city. Formed originally for the purpose of aiding and 
protecting their fellow-workmen in the pursuance of their occu- 
pations, the companies had assumed much control of municipal 
affairs. Especially was this true with regard to the "twelve 
great companies,"''^^ for in order that a man might be eligible 
to the highest offices the city had to give— that of Lord Mayor — 
it was necessary for him to be a member of one of these associa- 
tions.'^^ Then, too, the right of sharing in the privileges of the 
corporation was directly dependent on membership in the guilds. 

The companies had acquired much power through their 
accumulation of property and money, whicli had come to them 
through bequests, from rents, from entrance fees,*^^ fines, and 
fees paid for advanced rank in the company. Above the body 
of members constituting the bulk of each company there was 
the smaller group of liverymen, while above these was the body 
of governers, — in some instances consisting only of the governors 
or wardens, in others of these men aided by persons who had 
previously acted as the chief officials of the company."^ To be 

•^Stow, 255. 

""IMd., 170. 

'">Ihid., 322. 

''IhicL. 200. 

'-Ihid.. 220. 

'The twelve Great Companies : Mercers, Grocers. Drapers. Fish- 
nionsers. Goldsmiths, Slvinners, Merchant Tailors, Haberdashers. Salters, 
Ironmongers. Vintners, Cloth\^-orkers. 

'^Stow (in.SS ed.), 100. 

■■':\Iannin!j:ham, Dinrii. 12: Sf<ifiifrf< of the Rrahn. 22. H. VIII, 4. 

"See Cheyney. Iiidii-'^frial Tfi.itnrii of Eiifilaiid. p. 140. for a fnller 
discussion of this matter. 



i6 

a member of the livery a certain sum was charged by each 
company, while to be a Avarden or governor an additional sum 
was charged.''^''^ 

With the money so acquired the companies became the 
great bankers of the city. A^^ien there was need of money at 
short notice it was to the companies that the city turned. Thus 
in 1545, when, on account of the great dearth, it was necessary 
to import 4,000 quarters of com from Dantsig and Bremen, the 
companies raised the amount of money required to purchase it 
among themselves, for which the chamberlain agreed to repay 
them a year later.'^^ Again in 1553, when Mary passed through 
the city after her coronation, the recorder presented her with a 
purse containing £500 in gold. This sum had been raised 
among the crafts, with the understanding that it would be paid 
a month later by the chamberlain. In 1558, when Elizabeth 
was hurried into the Scotch war, the companies brought to the 
mayor and aldermen assembled in the Guildhall what money 
they could raise to aid the queen in her undertaking."^ 

The companies frequently spent large sums of money in 
keeping the city in repair. In 1549 the expenses of cleaning 
Dut the town ditch between Aldersgate and I^ewgate were 
shared by the chamber and certain of the companies.^*' It was 
to the companies, too, that the privy council turned in" 1597 
when it was necessary to repair the parish church of Black- 
friars, even though that church was in a district over which the 
city had no control.^ ^ The companies took a large share in any 
additional work which might be assigned to the city. ^Vlien 
London or the kingdom was in any immediate danger the C(^m- 
panies were called upon to take part in the watch. When the 
Protector Somerset was in the Tower the crafts were com- 
manded to giTard the gates by day.^^ Then, too, when it was 

"Manningham, 13. 
"Wriothesley. II. 91. 
":Maohyn. 108. 
'"Wriotheslev. II. 20. 
"A. P. C 1597. 13. 
^^Grey Friars' Chronicle, 71. 



17 

necessary to raise troops, the mayor sent precepts to tlie com- 
panies to provide equipments as well as men for the levy.^^ 

In all cases of dispute in which the companies were con- 
cerned the Lord Mayor acted as arbiter, whether the contention 
was between members of the same company which reached pro- 
portions too great to be settled by the wardens of the company, 
or disputes between different companies, or between a company 
and some other institution.^* 

By far the greatest influence which the companies possessed 
was the control which they exercised over the citizenship of the 
metropolis. In order that an English bom subject might be 
recognized as a citizen of London it was necessary for him to 
be made ''free" of one of the chartered companies.®^ According 
to a charter granted in 1319 by Edward II, his admittance to the 
freedom of a company was to be testified to by six honest and 
sufficient members of the company.^*' This charter further 
provided that all who had been admitted to the freedom of the 
city contrary to these provisions since the accession of Edward 
were to, be deprived of their freedom.^'^ That persons were 
admitted to the freedom of the city without previous admittance 
to a company in spite of the stipulations of this charter is 
evident from the order passed by the court of aldermen a century 
after the period with which we are dealing. This act of 1687 
declared that the warden of the company should appear before 
the chamberlain and declare the claimant already admitted in 
the company.^^ 

There were, however, some exceptions to this rule. In 
order that an alien might be admitted to the freedom of London 
he was required to take three steps, tAvo of which were the 
reverse of those taken by the native Englishman. In the first 
place, it was necessary for him to be made a "free denizen." 

•^Grafton's Chronicle, II, 522; Hist. MSS. Com.. Salisbury Papers, 
IV. 162 ; Remeni.. 231, 232 ; Wriothesley, I, 142 ; Machyn, 207. 
'*A. P. C, 1.57.5-1576, 176; il)i(l., 1591, 11; Remem., 92, 179. 182. 
^^Lairs and Cvstoms of London, 112. 
''Hist. Charters, 46. 
"77)///.. 47. 
''Municipal Corporations Report, 61. 



This consisted in his taking a corporal oath of loyalty to the 
crown in the Common Hall.^^ This body consisted of masters, 
wardens and liverymen of the companies of London, assembled 
in the Guildhall. Being thus naturalized, the person was 
permitted to carry on his work unmolested,*"' to meet with other 
members of the occupation he practiced in the hall belonging to 
the company, ^^ and to possess property within the city.^^ For 
these privileges he was expected to contribute with the company 
that admitted him to its hall, in any demand for money which 
was made by the city or by the crown. ^^ If he proved worthy 
of such an honor, he was then admitted to the freedom of the city 
by vote of the common council at the suggestion of members of 
the company.^'* Some few persons, too, were admitted by the 
chief men of London at their installation into office. When 
the oath of office was administered to an alderman he might 
enfranchise one man, each sheriflf two men, and the mayor 
four.^^ The alien on being admitted to the freedom of the city 
received two more privileges. lie enjoyed the right of the 
London citizen to be exempt from toll throughout the realm, ^*' 
and he had the privilege of holding any of the lesser offices at 
the disposal of the city.^^ It was not until he had taken the 
final step in his enfranchisement that he was entitled to all the 
privileges of a London citizen. After his admittance to the city 
freedom, he might be made a member of one of the companies. 
Then it was that he might share in the election of some of the 
city officials. After this he might purchase his admittance to 
the livery, when he would be privileged to sit in Common Hall. 

^C. S. P., Foreign, 1558-15.59, 574; Statiites of the Realm. 32 H. 
VIII. 10 ; A. P. C. 1577-1578. 252. 

""Ihid., 1.587-1588, 41(): Reniem., 2.50. 

^^Statutes of the Realm, 32 H. VIII, 16. 

""A. I'. C. 1.500. 45'.). 

^"Ihi(L, 1.577-1.578, 2.52; ihirh, 1587-1.588, 2.^5. 

""Ihid.. 1.577-1.578. .3.3.*^; ihitl.. 1597-1.598, 290; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.. 
Salisbury Papers, VIII, 2.57; Remem., 1.55. 

^''Manningham. 12. 

'"Bohun, Privilegia Londini, 52 ; Letters, Foreign and Domestic, 
Heiirv VIII, V, 202. 

«'A. P. C, 1577-1578. 168; Remem., 276; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept., 
Salisbury Papers, V, 80. 



19 

and take part in the election of the Lord Mayor and some other 
officers of London.^* 

The great body of citizens of London, however, became 
such through their membership in a company. This was effected 
in three ways. The person might be made free by serving as 
an apprentice, or by showing that he was the son of a freeman 
of London, or by receiving the privilege through purchase or 
bygift.^^ 

By far the greater number of freemen were admitted 
through service. So great was the number that acts regu- 
lating apprenticeship were passed not only by the city in the 
court of common council, ^'^'^ Ijut also by the central govern- 
ment. ^*^^ According to these acts the earliest age at which a 
person might be bound was fourteen. It was further required 
that a child so lioiuid should serve a freeman of London for 
seven years. This latter requirement was insured in the first 
place by the oath which every freeman was required to take at 
his admittance in the chamberlain's court, agreeing to take no 
apprentice for a shorter period than seven years. ^"" Li addition 
to this, it was necessary that the indenture of each apprentice 
be enrolled in the chamberlain's office in the presence of the 
apprentice within a year. Moreover, it w^as required that the 
apprentice be again presented to the chamberlain before he 
could be admitted to a company. Again, in order to prevent 
fraud on the part of the master or servant, stringent rules were 
enacted by the common council. If a master allowed his servant 
his liberty before the expiration of his time and at the end of 
the seven years presented him to the chamberlain as having 
served, or if he hired him to a non-freeman, he should be dis- 
franchised and his servant not admitted. The same ^punish- 
ment was administered if the master permitted the apprentice 

"'A. P. C, 1507-1.508. 200; Hist. MSS. Com. Kept.. Salisburv Tapers, 
VI 11. 2.57. 

"^Holinslieil. Chronicle 11, 207: Mamiinchain, 12: A. I\ ('.. 1.501- 
1.502, .51. 

^""Act of Coninion Council. 2S II. VIII. in Stow (l(r>.'^, erl.). HOO. 

"^Statutes of tli.> I'ealm, 5 Eliz.. 4. 

'"^Ilolinshed II. 2(i7. 



20 

to buy or sell foreign goods. -^^^ This act regulated the daily life 
of an apprentice. He was forbidden to marry on the pain of 
losing his freedom. A woman who married lost her freedom, 
but was permitted to leave her employment, while a man not 
only forfeited his freedom but was also compelled to serve out 
his time.^**^ 

Many persons were admitted to the freedom by birthrio'ht. 
A man twenty-one years of age, whose father had been a member 
of a company prior to the applicant's birth, was admitted fr;e 
to a company ''by his father's copy."^*^^ But frequently men 
so entitled to freedom served out apprenticeships, for, besides 
learning the trade, in some of the companies higher offices were 
open to those who had gained their freedom through apprentice- 
8hip.i«« 

Admittance by redemption consisted either in the grant 
by the wardens and the livery of a company to a prominent 
individual, or in the purchase of his freedom by an Englishman 
desiring to become affiliated with a company. ^"'^ 

Besides the citizens there were a number of "strangers" 
living within London. These, including both aliens and Eng- 
lishmen, Avere expected to contribute with the citizens to any 
subsidy that was levied for the defense of the realm. Though 
this brought forth much complaint from the strangers, the privy 
council always upheld the mayor and aldermen in their efforts 
to obtain money from all inhabitants of the city.-^^^ In 1596, 
October 6, when the Lord Mayor complained that many, espe- 
cially doctors of law and gentlemen, had refused to aid in the 
contribution, the lords of the council declared, "We think it 
reasonable and requisite that all such as keep any dwelling 
houses in the city should be charged to contribute." ^''^ In the 

"'Act of Common Coxmcil, 28 H. VIII, loo cit. 
"*Manningham. 12 ; Ch'een's Tu Quoque, Act I, Sc. I. 
""A. r. C l.'")91-1592. 51. 

'"'Besant's Tudor London contains a good chapter dealing with the 
life of tho Tjondon apprentices. 

""The Duke of Wurtemberg. in Rye. England as Seen 'by Foreigners, 7. 
io«A p r. 15r.S-1570 .S20: [hid.. 1.592-1593, 441: Ihid.. 15')5-ir,or.. 153. 
""'Ihid., 159G-1597, 228. 



21 

same way all dwelling within the city were charged to aid in the 
levying of soldiers and in equipping ships of war.^"^*^ 

The strangers also contributed to the loans, those not 
inconsiderable services which the city rendered to the crown. 
The Tudor sovereigns, looking upon London as a collateral 
factor of great value, did not hesitate to make use of it in times 
of financial embarrassment. As in the case of the subsidy, 
vvhenever money was to be used for the general defense of the 
realm, all residents of the city were called upon to contribute. 
In 1598, on account of the great expenditure of money con- 
sequent upon the disorder in Ireland, the queen asked the city 
for a loan of £20,000.^^^ The mayor was then authorized to 
ascertain the wealth of the strangers and to assess them 
accordingly. ^^^ 

Besides the money which the citizens might actually lend, 
there was another Avay in which the crown realized out of the 
wealth of London. The sovereign might borrow money from 
the foreign countries on the security of bonds issued by the city, 
in which it agreed to assume the payment of the debt in case 
the crown failed to do so.^^^ This seems to have been a favorite 
device of the early Tudors, for the acts of the privy council 
give proof of many instances when Sir Thomas Gresham, the 
agent successively for Edward, Mary and Elizabeth in the Low 
Countries, raised money on the strength of two bonds, one signed 
by the sovereign, the other by the city.^'^^ Elizabeth used this 
means of raising the money which she lent to the ISTethevlands 
in 1577-78. Of the £160,000 which she promised the States. 
S20,000 were lent by the city, which was sent directly to the 
Netherlands.^*^ The remainder was raised by Davison from 
merchants in the Low Countries and in High Germany, on the 
queen's and the city's bonds. Some £30,000 had lieen obtained 

""A. P. C, 1587-1588, 429 ; ibid., 1595-1596, 153. 

"Uhid, 1598-1599, 40. 

"V7)«Z., 1598-1599. .S7<;. 

"Vfi/fZ., 15.56-1558. 348 ; ihirl.. 1558-1.560. 101. 

"V&/(7., 1552-1554. 376; ibid., 1556-1558, 23. 

"^C. S. P. Foreign, 1577-1578, 707, 928. 



22 

from two Italian bankers. ^^*' Somewhat later one of these, 
Horatio Palavicino, must have bought out the share of the other 
in the matter, for in 1583 we find him holding both bonds for 
the entire amount.' ^^ At this time the principal and interest 
amounted to £33,374, 4s., 4d. From that time on till 1602 
Palavicino repeatedly appealed to the privy council for payment 
of either the principal or the interest.''^ As the States had 
regularly paid the annuity and by 1598 had paid their entire 
debt, the Italian requested that his accounts with the queen be 
adjusted. On December 21, 1598, Palavicino Avrote to Sir 
Robert Cecil, declaring that Elizabeth's loss of credit was due 
to the fact that she failed to refund his money. '^^ He also 
appealed frequently to the mayor and aldermen, on account of 
their bonds, to urge the crown to pay the amount owing to 
him.'^*^ They in turn urged the privy council to pay Pala- 
vicino and other creditors. This non-payment of debts may 
have had much to do with the action of the city in 1598 and 
1602, in demanding security before lending money to Eliza- 
beth. Although in the early days of her reign they advanced 
money readily, at these later dates they demanded security in 
lands and the customs of the city for a loan of £150,000 at one 
time, and at another the security of carrack goods for £6,000.^^^ 
This study of the conditions of London has shown that the 
municipal life was regulated by a body of charters, granted by 
various sovereigns, and to some extent by a few statutes passed 
during the period under consideration. It is also apparent that 
the most influential bodies within the metropolis v;ere the trading 
companies, for it was only through connection with them that 
citizenship was determined, and the election of the ])rincipal 
officials consummated. It is seen, too, that aliens, under certain 
circumstances, might be admitted to full municipal privileges, 

"'Remem.. 185, 18G. 

"'Hist. MSS. Com. Kept., Salislmry Papers. VI, 170, 241. 
"V7>(V/., YTII, 111. 
^'"Thid., 185. 
'^^Remeiii., 180, 187. 

"^C. S. P. Foreign. 1577-1578, 418 : A. P. C, 1554-1I55G. 321 ; Reiuem.. 
187 : Chamberlain's Letters, 31 ; Maehyn, 1G8. 



23 



and that all foreigners living within the city were expected to 
contribute with the citizens in all levies of men or money for 
the general protection of the kingdom. Finally, it is seen that 
the city greatly aided the crown in financial matters by either 
advancing money directly or by giving bonds to secure the 
payment of money advanced elsewhere. 



Chapter II. 



QUALIFICATIONS AND ELECTION OF 
LOED MAYOR. 

Of the officials of London the most important was tho 
Lord Mayor. The dignity of his position gave him a certain 
amount of prestige not only while he was the head of the city/ 
but during his subsequent service as alderman he took prece- 
dence of the recorder, the sheriffs and other aldermen, being 
one of the justices of the peace of London.^ The title ''Lord" 
which appertained to the office was jealously guarded, as were 
also all those brilliant devices which tended to make the position 
conspicuous in an age dominated by a love of pageantry and 
show.^ 

There were certain requirements to be satisfied before one 
might be eligible to the office. The candidate must have served 
as alderman for a considerable length of time. When Henry 
sent word to the city in 153Y that he wished Sir Thomas 
Gresham to be elected mayor, it was with great reluctance that 
the commons acquiesced, because he had been alderman for one 
year only.^ In addition to holding the office of alderman the 

^Relation of England, 43. 
'Charter Ed. III. in Hist. Charters. 53. 
»A. P. C. 1558-1.590, 266. 
*Wriothesley, 67. 



24 

aspirant must also be a member of one of the twelve leading 
companies.^ And, though each of these companies nominally 
had a right equal to every other one, in the period of years 
covered by the Tudor rule 24 per cent of the mayors were 
mercers, while not quite 2 per cent were vintners.*^ 

An act of common council passed in the seventeenth year 
of Richard II declared "that no person shall from henceforth 
be mayor in the said city if he have not first been sheriff of the 
said city, to the end that he may be tried in governance and 
bounty before he attains such estate of the mayoralty."^ This 
act was not strictly adhered to, for in 1520 Sir John Biage w^as 
elected mayor, although he had not previously served as sheriff. 
The same thing is true with regard to Sir John Langley, mayor 
in 1574^ and Sir Cuthbert Buckle, mayor in 1593.^° 

There was another condition necessary for a man to hold 
the office of mayor, which was as imperative as those established 
by custom or law. It was impossible for a person to act as the 
chief official of London unless he were wealthy, as the expenses 
arising from the position were many, while for his services he 
received no compensation.-^^ Besides the great feast which he 
was compelled to give on the day he was sworn into office, the, 
mayor was supposed to give additional banquets at various 
seasons of the year. Moreover, he was expected to entertain 
any foreigners of rank, or any official of the English crown 
who happened to visit London, These smaller feasts were held 
at the Guildhall, at the hall of the mayor's company or in the 
mayor's house. ^^ During the time of his service he was obliged 
to live "so magnificently that foreigner or native, without any 
expense, was free if he could find a chair empty to dine at his 
table, w^here there was always a great plenty. "^^ 

"Stow (ed. 1633), 573-593. 

"•Liher Alhvf^. 309. 

'Grafton's Chronicle. 

*Stow's Annals'. 320. 

"/&«/., 309. 

"Remem., 3G,5. 

"Wriothesley. II. 25. 

"Paul Hentzner. Travels in England in Rye. 107. 



25 

A supply of ready money was further required by the 
splendor which the mayor was compelled to maintain. Some 
of the display attendant upon the office and its following was, 
however, not chargeable to the mayor — the scepter, sword and 
cap which were carried before him on ceremonial occasions 
belonged to the corporation. The chain of gold, too, which 
each mayor wore on special occasions, was owned by the city, 
and was presented to each incumbent as he was installed into 
office. It had been given to the city by Sir John Allen, mayor, 
with the stipulation that each succeeding mayor should wear it 
on state occasions.^'* It seems to have attracted the attention of 
the foreigners, who conifused it with the collar worn by the 
Knights of the Garter. -^^ Even though these articles were sup- 
plied by the city, the garments which the Lord Mayor had to 
provide for himself and his suite must have drawn a large 
amount of money from his purse. Of the thirty-one members 
of the official household of the mayor, nine were supplied with 
liveiT by him, the others being provided for by the city.^*' In 
case there was a death in his family, the mayor supplied mourn- 
ing garments for the household. It was necessary for him to 
provide himself with gowns and cloaks of three colors ; on cer- 
tain days he wore a black gown and cloak, on other days a 
violet and on still other days a scarlet cloak and gown.^'^ 

It was not within the city only that the position of the 
mayor was regarded with respect. Wlienever the officials of the 
crown wrote to the mayor, they addressed him as ^"Lord."^^ At 
the coronations, too, the Lord Mayor had special duties to 
perform. At Henry VIII's coronation the mayor, who had been 
dubbed knight by the king prior to his sitting down to dinner, 
rose from his place and served the king with hyppocras from a 
golden cup. As a reward for the services, Henry presented him 
with the cup and its cover of gold.^^ A similar ceremony was 

"Wriothesley, T. Ifil. 

^'^Panl Hentzner, /. c. 107. 

""•Stow (9(\. W>i\^). 441. 

"Paul Hentzner. /. c. 107; Wriothesley. I. 100. 

"C. S. P.. A. P. C, and Reniem. passim. 

"Hall's Chrovicle, 510. 



26 

performed at the coronation of Anne Boleyn, when the mayor, 
attended by twelve citizens, served the queen from a cup of 
assay and from a cup of gold.^*^ Both of these cups were given 
to him as a reward for his service. The respect felt by the 
crown for the city's officials is also apparent in the gifts of 
bucks and does which were made to the mayor, in addition to 
the annual grants of venison given to the city. Mary issued 
several warrants to deliver game to the mayor from Nonebuch.^^ 
The knighting of the mayor, too, at his presentations testilies to 
the esteem in which the position was held by the crown. 

The election of the mayor was held annually in the Guild- 
hall. Prior to 1546 the elections took place on St. Edward's 
Day (October 13), but on account of the expenses of the feasts, 
an act of common council of that year changed ^he date to 
Michaelmas, on which day the sheriffs took their oaths.^^ This 
alteration in the election day necessitated but one feast, as the 
banquet provided by the sheriffs for the aldermen sufficed for 
the mayor's election banquet. ^""^ Before this time each mayor 
had been compelled to give a feast in October, consequently this 
change saved him about £40.^* 

The year 1540 witnessed two other important acts of the 
common council relative to the election of the city's executive. 
These ]irovided that any ])erson who, on being elected to the 
office, refused to serve should pay a fine of £1,000, but that 
previous serA'ice should form an exemption.^^ Later it was 
provided that no person should be eligible to office for a second 
time. 

The mode of proceeding with an election was well regulated 
by custom. At eight o'clock in the morning, all the aldermen 
met the Lord Mayor and sheriffs in the Guildhall, wearing their 
scarlet gowns. ^"^ Going to the chapel, they heard a sermon, 

^"Hall, 805. 

^'lipttpr from LorA flavor to Rurghley. in Ellis Loiters, Second 
Series, III, 51; Hist. MSS. Com. VII Report, Appendix I, 612. 
^^Grev Friarfi' Vhronicle, 52. 
=nVri"othesley, I, 175. 
^'JMd., 171. 

'■■'Aots of Common Connril. in Municipal Corporation Reports, 29. 
'"Stow (ed. Ki.-?.-^). r.52. 



27 

which was followed by the communion service. After the service 

was completed they proceeded to the court of Hustings, where 

the commons were assembled. This assembly seems to have 

been composed of the common councilmen and the livery of the 

principal companies. ^^ After all were seated the recorder arose 

and addressed the meeting, repeating what had been said to the 

smaller assembly by the preacher, and calling attention to their 

duty of choosing wisely. ^^ When the recorder had finished his 

speech, he, the Lord Mayor and the aldermen returned to the 

council chamber, leaving the two new sheriffs with the common 

sergeant to speak to the commons. The sergeant then addressed 

the people, during which time one sheriff stood on each side of 

him, with the towm clerk beside one and the chamberlain beside 

the other, regarding their duty of choosing wisely. ^^ After 

three or four aldermen had been nominated by the commons, 

and the vote had been taken by show of hands, the two aldermen 

receiving the greatest number of votes were announced as the 

choice of the commons by the common sergeant, who acted as 

the election officer.^^ During this time the commons w^ere 

required to refrain from speaking. These names were then 

sent to the Lord Mayor and aldermen in the council chamber by 

the common sergeant, where the next step in the election took 

place. The recorder, standing by the window, took a poll of 

the aldermen, beginning with the youngest, each alderman in 

turn giving his vote. They then returned to the Hustings 

Court, witli the man elected on the left of the recorder,^ ^ who 

again addressed the commons, asking if they approved of the 

choice. After they had signified their approval the swordbearer 

took the tippet from the neck of the newly chosen mayor and in 

its stead placed the chain of gold.^^ This done, the mayor 

advanced to the place of the recorder and "disabled himself" 

^'Stow (ed. 16.33), 632; Hist. MSS. Com. Kept, Salisbury Papers, 
TI, 117. 

'"Stow (E(i. 16,33). 6.52. 

^"Hist. MSS. Com. Rppt.. Salisbury Papers, II, 117. 

=^Stow (ed. 1633), 652. 



28 

according to the custom, saying that he was unworthy to fill so 
high an office, then gave thanks for the choice. After another 
speech from the old Lord Mayor, the two mayors, putting off 
their cloaks, rode together to the oldest sheriff's house to dinner, 
followed by many of the aldermen.^^ 

At these elections, in addition to the common councilmen 
and livery, some of the citizens and foreigners of rank were 
permitted to be present as spectators.^* 

JSTotwithstanding all the ceremony which accompanied the 
election, it seems in some instances that the procedure was little 
more than mere formality, with the result known long before- 
hand. It cannot be that a mere spirit of prophesying caused 
Henry Machyn, in commenting on the deaths of various alder- 
men, to say that if each had lived he would have become mayor 
the year following.'"^^ The fact that the course of the elec- 
tion was known beforehand is also brought out in the election of 
1537, when Henry desired that Thomas Gresham be made 
mayor.^*^ The chronicler remarks that the commons would 
have had Mr. Holes, who by the king's letter was put off three 
years.^'^ 

In rare instances there was some confusion at the elections. 
In 1526 the commons refused to elect Thomas Seymer, because 
he had been sheriff in 1516 and with the other officials of the 

""Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.. Salisbury Papers, II, 117; Nichols. Pro- 
gresses of Elizahelh, III. 250. 

^^Samuel Kiechel, Merchant of Swabia, in Rye, 88. 

""Machyn, 116, 170, 213. 

^"Wriothesley, I, 67. 

"That the senior sheriff was not always chosen as mayor is shown 
by the following tables : 
Sheriffs. 

1571 Henry Miles .John Branch 

1572 Richard Pipe Nicholas Woodruff 

1573 James Harvey Thomas Pullison 

1574 Thomas Blanke 

1575 Edward Osborne 

Mai/07's. 

1578 Sir Rich. Pipe 1.582 Sir Thos. Blanke 

1579 Sir Nich. Woodruff 1.'83 Sir FTd. Osborne 

1580 Sir John Branch 1.584 Sir. Thos. Pullison 

1581 Sir James Harvey 



29 

city aided Wolsey to suppress the riots of ''Evil May Day." 
Eventually, however, he was chosen.*^* There was some little 
commotion, too, when Mr. George Monop refused to accept the 
office after his election. 'No one was elected in his place until 
October 28, when Mr. Thomas Baldey agreed to accept it.^^ 

Any intrusion of the crown into the rights and privileges 
of the city regarding the election was bitterly resented by the 
commons. Wliile Elizabeth interfered but once in the city's 
election, Henry VIII seems frequently to have desired to regu- 
late the choice of mayor. In 1535, when the crown feared some 
papel and French intrigue, Cromwell, the Lord Chancellor, was 
sent to the city several days before the election took place to see 
that the commons should choose some one of authority, influence 
and experience to fill the position. On the eve of St. Edward's 
day, at the time of the eFection, the king sent a letter to the 
recorder declaring that it was his pleasure that Sir John Allen 
be elected mayor."*^ Though the commons agreed, it was said 
that Sir John himself, not wishing the office, had spent upwards 
of 100m. to prevent the election.*^ Althougli the commons 
yielded in this instance, two years later they were not so willing 
to grant his majesty's requests.'*^ Four years after that the 
royal interference is again apparent, but the suit is milder. On 
September 16 the lords of the privy council asked the lords of 
the council who were living in London to ascertain whether the 
report that had reached the king's ears, that the Lord Mayor and 
citizens of London liad determined to elect a certain Mr. Denman 
as mayor for the ensuing year, were correct.'*^ If they found it 
to be true, they Avere then to send for the mayor, recorder and 
such other aldermen as they should think fit, and should require 
them to use all the means they could to bring about the election 
of some other person for the office.*^ If they had intended to 

^"Orcy Friars'' Chronicle, 33. 

^Ihi(U 31. 

*»C. S. P. Spanish, 1534-1535, 552: L. F. & D., H VIII. 0. .594. 

"Wriothesley, I, 31. 

'^M F. & D.. H. VIII. 12. Pt. II, 57G : Wriotheslev, I, (M. 

«A. P. C, VII. 243. 

"L. F. & D., H. VIII, IG, 1184. 



30 

choose Mr. Denman, the city officials must have yielded again, 
for Michael Donnar was mayor for that year."*^ It was in 1574 
that Elizabeth undertook to alter an election. On October 15, 
before the Lord Mayor had taken his oath of office, the privy 
council appointed five men to examine into the objections against 
Mr. Hayes, lately elected to be Lord Mayor of London.'**' At 
whatever results the investigators arrived. Alderman Howes 
became mayor.^"^ On account of the plague he did not hold the 
annual banquet in Guildhall ; instead he gave a feast to the 
aldermen only at his house, while the companies dined at their 
respective halls.*^ 

The banquet which each of the mayors gave one month 
after his election was held on St. Simon and Jude's day, after 
the mayor had been sworn into office at the Guildhall, and had 
been presented to the king or his representative at the exchequer, 
and had been conducted back in triumph to the Guildhall. The 
administration of the oath was conducted with great ceremony, 
in honor of the old mayor as well as of the new. The ceremony 
of the meeting at Ca?sar's house, which the conspirators pl'inned 
as a decoy in Shakespeare's great play, must have called up in 
the minds of the Elizabethans the ]ucture of the honor paid to 
the departing mayor. All the aldermen who were to dine with 
the new mayor met at the house of the retiring official at eight 
in the morning, wearing their fur-trimmed violet gowns and 
cloaks. There they awaited the sheriffs, who conducted them to 
the Guildhall, where they received the new mayor, escorted by his 
company. Then they passed into the court of Hustings, where 
the assembled freemen witnessed the taking of the oath. For- 
eigners of rank were sometimes through courtesy admitted."*'' 
Silence being commanded by the common crier, the town clerk 
administered the oath. The old Lord Mayor then arose from his 
place and took the seat that had been occupied by the mayor. 

'''Grafton, Chronicle (list of mayors). 

'"A. r. C, 1.571-1575. 300. 

"Stow, Ahridgement of Chronicles, 315. 

"A. P. C. 1571-1575, 303. 

^'Samuel Kiechel, 7. c, 88. 



31 

Then, after many courtesies, the chamberlain delivered the 
scepter, the keys of the common seal and the seal of mayoralty to 
the mayor. The swordbearer then presented the sword, likewise 
after much ceremonial bowing. After this the new Lord Mayor 
was conducted by the retiring officer to his own home, where he 
gave a small dinner to a few of the aldermen. ^'^ 

The day following was the Lord Mayor's great day. Then 
occurred the elaborate trip to Westminster with the presenta- 
tion, followed by the return trip with its pageant, culminating 
in the banquet at the Guildhall.^ ^ Early in the morning the 
sheriffs and aldermen met at the Lord Mayor's house, wearing 
their scarlet gowns and cloaks furred, accompanied by the livery 
and bachelors of the Lord Mayor's company.^ ^ The bachelors 
were those members of the Lord Mayor's company below the 
rank of livery who were chosen by the mayor to act as his 
serving gentlemen on all feast days during the year. There 
were from sixty to one hundred bachelors, according to the size 
of the com]')any, from which the Lord Mayor was chosen. ^^ In 
procession they went to the Thames, where they took barges for 
Westminster. The mayor's barge, decorated with the arm^ of 
the city, was accompanied by a boat of the sovereign rigged up 
like a ship of war. The livery of each company had their barge 
decorated with the arms of the company.^'' The mayor's bach- 
elors were the only citizens below the rank of livery who were 
permitted to accompany the mayor. They had a barge of their 
own, which preceded that of the livery of the mayor's company. 
This was immediately in front of the mayor's barge, in which 
were the aldermen, sheriffs and recorder. Landing at West- 
minster, they were conducted to the exchequer,^'^ where the oath 
was given to the Lord Mayor, after which he was presented to 
the sovereio'n bv the recorder. The mavor was then dubbed 



""Stow (ed. 1033). 6.5(5. 

"Maehvn, 224. 

"Stow (ed. 1633), 6.56. 

"''Win. Smith in Drake. Fthol.-Cftprorr and Jiis Tiiiir, ic.*^. 

'■^/hid. Ki-J. 

''^?»I:iclivii, 47, 72, 117. 



knight by the Lord Chamberlain, acting as the sovereign's rep- 
resentative. Before returning to the city some time was spent 
in and about the cathedral.^^ 

The trip from Westminster back to the city was taken in 
opposite order from the way in which they went to the exchequer, 
the lesser crafts leading the way. At Paul's wharf the proces- 
sion landed and proceeded to Paul's churchyard, where the 
children and men who were to take part in the march through 
the city were awaiting the mayor and his escort.^ '^ Those who 
took part in the pageant proper Avere dressed in various kinds of 
suits prepared for the occasion. Some were arrayed in bright- 
hued gowns of uniform color and cut, others were arranged in 
groups to represent some allegorical device, and still others im- 
personated the figures prominent in the old morality plays. The 
figures most frequently used were the wild men, the devils, the 
dragons and St. Paul. These pageants had been carefully 
executed, all tending to glorify the city and the new mayor. 
Many of the well known poets and dramatists of the period had 
planned elaborate devices for these shows. Such names as Peele, 
Munday, Dekker and Jonson are associated with these city 
pageants.^ ^ 

A new procession was then formed, consisting of the 
mayor and aldermen on their horses, that had been brought to 
the churchyard, the livery of the various crafts and the bach- 
elors of the mayor's company and preceded by the pageants, in 
front of which were borne two great standards, one bearing the 
arms of the city, the other the arms of the mayor's company.^® 
After each person had taken his proper place the great proces- 
sion through Cheapside to Guildhall began. 

At this hall was held the mayor's feast, to which were 
invited all persons of rank in the city, the wardens with the 

^•'Stow (1088 ed.). 6.5fi : Ellis's Letters, II. 1. 173; Hist. MSS. Com. 
Rept., Salisbvii-v Tapers. II, 117 ; Grafton, Chronicle, II, 301 ; Nichols, 
II, 3nn. 

"Machyn. 72. 155. 270. 

'^Lord Mayor's Pageants, Percy Society, Vol. X. 

'^^Greeris Tu Quoque. 



33 

prominent members of the livery of each company, and the lords 
of the privy council and ambassadors of all the foreign coun- 
tries.^*^ In order to provide food for the guests, as their numbers 
reached far up into the hundreds,''^ the sovereign sometimes 
sent game from the royal parks to the Lord Mayor/'^ 

The guests were placed at different tables in various parts 
of the great hall, the women and persons of highest rank sitting 
with the mayor and aldermen at the upper tables. The feast 
lasted many hours, during which time several courses were 
served.^^ While it was necessary to cut down the number of 
courses when the Lord Mayor's da.j came on Friday, the feast 
was almost as elaborate as in other years.'"''* 

During plague years, when it seemed unwise to hold the 
accustomed festivities, permission was granted to the Lord 
Mayor and aldermen to postpone the feast,^^ or to abolish it for 
the year, provided the money which would have been expended 
for that purpose would be used for the relief of the suffering.^^ 
Though it had been customary, when contagion was feared, to 
appeal to the privy council for permission to omit the feast, the 
city regarded the giving of the banquet as its prerogative, and 
refused to permit outside interference. In 1580 the Lord 
Maj^or's day came on a Friday, and as the mayor, Sir John 
Branch, was in such poor health that he could not eat fish, the 

^Stow, 443; Relation of England, 44; C. S. P., Foreign, 1564-1565, 
251 : L. F. & I).. II. VIII. 9. i:V2. 

"Besides otticers of the city, tliere were present reiiresentatives from 
each of the sixty coiiiiJanies. In all eases these inchulerl the wardens 
and some of the prineipal memhers of the livery. The nnniher of livery- 
men coming from different companies varied from one to seventeen. 
From the twelve great companies there were usnally eiglit members, 
while the most frequent mnnl>er from the lesser companies was two. In 
addition to these, the mayor was ])ermitted to invite anyone he wished. 
Usnally he asked the amliassadors from all the foreign countries and 
foreigners of note, memhers of the privy council, and members of the 
nobility and the wives of the citv officers. Wriothesley, I, 16, 176 ; 
L. F. & D.. H. VIII. 16. 1,540. 

'^Stow. 44.",: Jj. V. & D.. II. VIII. 12. 940. 

"^Relation of Enr/hiiid. 44; Wriothesley, II. 208. 

"/?)?>?., 176. 

"''Rem em., 207. 

'"A. P. C, 1571-1575, 303. 



34 

city officials decided to omit the feast.*^' The following day the 
members of the privy council wrote to the Lord Mayor, stating 
that the queen considered the city's action in not holding the 
feast asso very singular that she desired to know the cause.^* 
In order that the explanation might be accurate, Elizabeth de- 
manded that some person qualified to answer should be sent 
immediately to the members of the council. Sir John Branch 
at once responded by wa-iting to the council that his feeble health 
was the cause of the omission. He added that it w^as his 
intention to invite them all at some more convenient day.^^ The 
day following he wrote to Lord Burghley requesting him to 
explain to Elizabeth the reason for postponing the feast."'^ 

When the banquet was concluded the procession formed 
again and marched to St. Paul's, where divine service was held, 
after which the mayor was escorted to his home.^^ 

In case of the death of the mayor during the term of his 
service, a new officer was immediately elected in the court of 
Hustings according to the prescribed form.'''^ The procession to 
Westminster, or, in case of the king's absence, to the Tower, was 
held as well as the banquet to the Guildhall.''^ The act of com- 
mon council declaring that a man might not be elected twice as 
mayor, does not seem to have been applied in such places. In 
1544, April 17, Sir Ralph Warren was elected to complete the 
term of Sir William Bowyer, although he had served as mayor 
in 1536. And again in 1588, Richard Martin, wdio w^as elected 
at the death of Sir jMartin Colthrop, was again elected in 1593 
to serve out the year of Sir Cuthbert Buckle. Sir Rowland 
Hayward in 1590 completed the term of Sir John Allad, 
although tw^enty years before he had been Lord Mayor.'^ 

"Remem., 206. 

^Ibid., 205. 

•^A. P. C. 1.580-1581. 245. 

'"Remem.. 206. 

'^Machyn. 155. 

"Wriothesley. I, 146. 

"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept, Mrs. Falkland-Russell-Astley's Papers, 5. 

**Stow's Annals: Grafton's Chronicle. 



35 

Chapter III. 

THE MAYOE AS A KOYAL OFFICIAL. 

The most important part of the mayor's duties was per- 
formed only with the advice and consent of the aldermen.^ 
Consequently to a certain extent were checked those evils which 
must necessarily have arisen from the frequent change in the 
principal office. Especially in his judicial capacity, was the 
mayor expected to act only with advice. As justice of the peace 
he acted with the aldermen who had ''passed the chair," that is 
with those aldermen who had served as mayor, as judge of oyei 
and terminer with the recorder and national justices. In his 
own court he heard pleas when assisted by the recorder and a 
few of the aldermen. In other cases, however, he fulfilled his 
duties unaided. With regard to those functions which ordi- 
narily appertained to the crown officials, the mayor acted singly. 
These were privileges that had been granted from time to time 
by different sovereigns. Among them were his duties as clerk 
of the market, eschcator, lord lieutenant, coroner and collector 
of the subsidy. 

As clerk of the market, the mayor regulated the prices of 
food and the assize of bread and beer, and inspected the weights 
and measures used in the city. A^Hien the prices of wheat rose 
or fell, the mayor ordered a corresponding change in the size of 
the loaf of bread. Thus in 1553, when the price of wheat began 
to fall, the penny loaf of wheaten bread was increased from 20 
to 34 ounces.^ In 1579 the lords of the council commended the 
Lord Mayor for his zeal in lowering the price of bread^ and 
increasing its size when wheat had become cheaper.^ If a baker 
were found guilty of making bread contrary to the mayor's 
instructions he was imprisoned. Burghley wrote to the Lord 

^Norton in Collier's Reprints, III, 10. 

=Wriothesley, I, 81. 

'Reniem., .32. 

♦A. P. C, 1578-1588, 2G9. 



36 

Mayor in 1581, asking him to release a certain man who had 
been imprisoned on account of making undersized loaves, as the 
bread had been made not for the purpose of sale, but for Lord 
Dudley's household.^ In 1592 the mayor wrote to the Lord 
Treasurer that the bakers of the city complained that, in alter- 
ing the size of the loaf according to the fall in the price of corn, 
he had made the size of the loaf of the city bakers exceed that of 
the bakers outside the city's limits.^ It was evidently the 
mayors intention to bring pressure to bear upon the bakers 
outside of the city, so that the loaves might be equal in weight. 
A few years later, when the size of the loaf had been very small 
on account of the scarcity of grain, the mayor neglected to cause 
the size to be increased after a particularly good harvest. The 
privy council accordingly wrote to him that unless the abuse 
were instantly remedied, great blame would be ascribed by the 
queen to him."^ 

\^^ien the harvest had been particularly poor, the mayor 
gave directions for the importation of wheat and rye in order 
that prices might be kept within bounds.^ In 1523, because a 
poor harvest was feared, the Lord Mayor made provision for 
the importation of fifteen quarters of wheat. But when it 
arrived the bakers, who wished to sell their own, refused to use 
it, declaring that it was musty. When Wolsey heard of this, he 
ordered the bakers to prove their assertion. As they were unable 
to do this, he commanded that they buy the wheat that the 
mayor had ordered.'' In 1546, and again in 1549, the mayor 
made bargains with certain merchants of the Steelyard for the 
importation of wheat from Bremen and Dantsig.^*' With the 
same <)l)ject in view, no great quantity of wheat might be 
exported without special license from the mayor, who in case 
of particularly largo shipments received permission from the 

"Rom em.. .'58. 

'I hid. 

'•A. P. r.. 1.598-1509. 142. 

«C. S. p., 1547-1.580, 208 ; L. F. & D.. H. VIIT, 9, 614. 

•Hall's Chronicle, 650; A. P. C, 1542-1547, 362. 

"Wriothesley. II, 30. 



37 

Lord Chancellor. ^^ The people were usually opposed to having 
great quantities of grain exported, alleging that it always caused 
a rise in prices. Hence they frequently urged the mayor to 
limit the numher of licenses.^- In 1597 Sir Robert Cecil asked 
the mayor to give license for 200 quarters of wheat to be shipped 
to the western part of England. The mayor replied that he 
would be glad to satisfy his request, but he feared the people 
might object. ^^ 

The prices of beer and ale fluctuated at about the same time 
and according to the same scale as that of the bread, being 
dependent upon the har\'ests. In 1579, when the mayor was 
praised for increasing the size of the loaf of bread, he was urged 
to call before him the wardens and the officers of the beer 
brewers, in order to ascertain from them what alterations in 
prices they had made.^'* The retail price of wines, too, was 
regulated by a conference held between the mayor and the chief 
merchants. ^^ 

During the Lenten season it was the custom for the mayor 
to issue licenses to certain butchers, giving them permission to 
sell meat during the weeks of fasting. ISTot only was the number 
of licenses limited, but each person receiving one was required 
to give bond that he would sell no meat except to those who were 
sick or otherwise unfitted for the fast, and to those ambassadors 
who ate meat during Lent.^^ 

At the time of the troubles in Ireland, when the queen's 
navy was being equipped for the expedition there was a surplus 
of salt meat. The mayor was commanded to give orders that no 
butchers should sell any salt meat to merchants supplying their 
ships until this surplus be first expended.^''' 

As the people blamed the Lord Mayor for the high prices 
of meat at the Easter season of 1551, he attempted to remedy 
the matter, but was unsuccessful, for the cattle were sold at 

"C. S. P.. 1.547-ir)8(\ r.22, 0.37. 

'-rbid., 1581-1500, 900. 

"Hist. MSS. Com. Rent.. Salishiu-y Papers. VII. 148. 

"A. P. C, 1578-1.58('. 200. 

'T.. S. P., 1.547-1 580, .525. 532. 

"A. P. C, 1.5,52-15,54, 222 : ibid., 15,58-1570. 205. 

"('. S. P.. 1,50.5-1,507, 247. 



38 

such high prices that the butchers were unable to sell at a lower 
figure. On account of these high rates, a royal proclamation 
was issued demanding that meat be sold at a lower price. ^^ To 
secure its enforcement, it was further commanded that the cattle 
merchants sell their wares at reasonable rates. ^^ 

In the late winter and early spring of 1553 the mayor took 
full control of the herring trade. All merchants of the city were 
forbidden to take any fish from the landing at Rye until the 
city had first been supplied.^" When some French merchants 
wished to purchase thirty lasts of herring, they applied to the 
council, who in turn wrote to the mayor, giving order that the 
goods be delivered. ^^ In the same way a certain fish merchant 
asked the lords of the council to use their influence in causing 
the mayor to grant him permission to export some lasts of 
herring that he had bouo-ht in Zealand and wished to take to 
France to exchange for wines. ^^ 

In 1541, when determining the price of sugar, the mayor 
was limited by order from the council. In order to ascertain 
the highest ])rice at which sugar might be sold, he was required 
to send for five or six experienced merchants to inquire of them 
the prices of sugar and spices in Luxembourg and Antwerp, 
lie was then to report this to the privy council, so that the 
London prices corresponded with those abroad.^" A few days 
later the mayor was commanded to make proclamation that no 
merchant should sell the best sugar above Sd. a pound and the 
poorer sort at a correspondingly lower figure. ^^ 

The mayor was responsible to the crown for the behavior 
of the city, regarding the royal edicts determining the valuation 
of coins. Following Edward's proclamation of 1551, by which 
the value of the coins was diminished, there was much discon- 

"Wriothesley. II. 47. 

"L. F. & D.. H. VIII, 6, 341. 

"A. F. C. 1.552-1554. 206. 

'"I huh, 22!). 

"IhuL. 232. 235. 

»A. P. C. VII, 104: L. F. & D.. H. VIII. 10. 420. 

'*IU(1., 447 ; A. V. C, VII, 113. 



39 

tent in the city. The conncil conseqnently sent for the Lord 
Mayor to appear before the court at Greenwich. There, as a 
representative of the people, he was severely reprimanded for 
the disobedience of the city in murmuring against the proclama- 
tion, and was commanded to see that no merchant raised the 
prices of his wares according to the depreciation of the coins. 
To assist him in this undertaking, the mayor called the wardens 
of the various crafts and trades to meet him and the common 
council in the Guildhall. There it was determined that the 
members of the companies be warned to report, to the mayor 
any infringement of the proclamation. Besides this, each alder- 
man was ordered to repair to his own ward to see that abuses 
were corrected.^*'* A few months later a letter of admonition was 
sent by the privy council to the Lord Mayor on account of his 
slackness in punishing the offenders. ^^ In 1556 the mayor was 
directed to send spies into all the wards to arrest every person 
refusing to accept the established currency for his wares. ^'^ 
When Elizabeth was endeavoring to reform the currency, the 
mayor was commanded to affix the mark of the greyhound and 
portcullis to certain coins in order to distinguish the poorer 
from the better ones.^^ 

The mayor had also charge of thfe prices of wood and coal 
within the city. In 1543 he was directed to see that fuel was 
sold for a more reasonable price. ^^ Owing to the scarcity of 
wood and coal the prices were excessively high in 1553. The 
mayor, therefore, caused sea coals to be sold at the markets at 
Billingsgate and Queenhithe for 4d. a bushel. This relieved the 
suffering of the poor, for which the mayor was greatly praised.^'^ 

The office of escheator, which had been granted to the 
mayor by Edward III for London, and by Edw^ard VI for 
Southwark, must have brought the mayor into close connection 

"Wriothesley, II. 48. 

='A. P. C. 15.50-1552. 272, 352. 

'Uhiil, 1.554-15.50. 358. 

=*C. S. P.. 1.547-1580, 160. 

^''A. P. C, I, 76. 

=°Wriothesley, 105. 



40 

with the people.^ ^ Acting in this capacity, the mayor was 
required to look after the lands which came into the king's 
hands through forfeiture or other cause. To vouch for his 
service the mayor was required to take an oath at the exchequer, 
at the close of his term of service, at the same time the new 
mayor was taking^ ^ his oath, that he had lawfully served the 
king in this position. At the death of an abbot in the early 
years of the period under consideration, the temporalities belong- 
ing to an abbey were seized by the escheators. In 1519, 1525 
and 1528, on the election of new abbots to Reading Abbey, St. 
Saviour's, Bermondsey and Lincoln, respectively, the mayor 
received a writ, with the other escheators of the realm, to restore 
the lands to the abbots.^^ In 1532 certain tenements in the 
parish of West Chepe came into the king's hand through an 
inquisition held before the Lord Mayor as escheator, proving 
that the company of goldsmiths had acquired possession of the 
lands without a license.^^ When acting as escheator it was the 
mayor's duty to determine the nearest heir of the deceased,^^ 
for which service he received some fees from the estate as 
recompense. In 1528, for finding offices for Sir William 
Compton's heir, the Lord Mayor received 40 shillings.^'' As 
escheator of Southwark, the mayor had power to direct writs 
and precepts to the sheriffs of Surrey.^"^ 

As lord lieutenant of the city qf London, the mayor received 
a commission for the mustering and training of troops at times 
when the realm was in need of armed forces. His commission 
was usually sent at the same time as those of the lords lieuten- 
ants of the counties. In this capacity it was his duty to ascertain 
the number of able-bodied men and the quantity of arms that 
the city could furnish, to oversee the training of the men, to 

''Hist. Charters. .55. 122. 

^^Lihrr Alhiif^. 28. 

^'L. F. & D.. H. VIII, .3, 123; ibid., 4, 1080; ibid., 4. 414.3. i, H 

^*Ibid., 5, 1499 (25). 

^C. S. P., Addenda. 1566-1579, 477. 

'"L. F. & D., H. VIII, 4, 5017. 

^'Camden, Britannia, 394. 



41 

inspect the uniforms provided by the city, and in case of 
insubordination to see that the culprits were properly punished.^'^ 

The number of men furnished by the city varied according 
to the undertaking for which they were levied. In 1539 the 
commission sent to the Lord Mayor directed him to certify the 
names of all men living within the city between the ages of 16 
and 60.^^ In order to hasten the inquiry the aldermen and 
mayor repaired to their respective wards and, with the aid of 
the constables, took the accounts.""^ Under ordinary circum- 
stances the city was required to furnish about 500 or 600 men.^^ 
In 1601, however, on account of the Irish war and the fear of 
invasion, the city was asked to raise 1,000 nien.^^ Two years 
previous to that, when the danger had seemed more imminent, 
the mayor had levied 3,000 soldiers."*^ This same number had 
also been raised in the early part of the century, when Henry's 
continental troubles had demanded an unusually large army. In 
1545 there were two levies made in the city, one of 2,000 men^'* 
and the other of IjOOO.^"^ The year of the Armada naturally 
saw the greatest muster of forces. To meet the demands the 
city was asked to contribute 10,000 men. Of these 6,000 men 
were to be enrolled under certain captains and ensigns to be 
especially trained.^*' 

The levying of the men for the wars was, except in rare 
cases, facilitated by the co-operation of the companies. The 
Lord Mayor summoned the wardens, who apportioned the num- 
ber to be raised among themselves. The men were then mus- 
tered before the mayor and aldermen.^" 

In addition to levying the men, the Lord j\Iayor had to 
oversee the arming, the providing with uniforms, and the train- 

^'Hall. Chroiiivle, 829. 

'"L. F. & D.. H. VIII. 14, I. 94(1. 

^Tlall, Chronicle. 829: L. F. & D.. H. VIII. 14. I. 940. 

"A. P. C, 1558-1570, 120 ; C. S. P., 1547-1580, 224. 

"Ihid., l(j()l-1603. Gl. 

"Hist. :MSS. Com., XV Kept. Appendix V, 71. 

"A. I'. C. I, 214. 

''Ihid., 218. 

"Hist. MSS. Com., XV Report. Appendix V. 32. 

"Mnchyn, 162, 104. 



42 

ing of the soldiers, lii 1538, in order to keep the city well 
supplied with arms, the Lord Mayor devised a scheme which 
he hoped would be incoi-porated into an act by the common 
council. According to it every alderman was to have in his 
possession twenty sets of harness, the sheriffs ten, the wardens 
of the companies four, the liverymen two, and householders one 
set. To see that this was followed, the wardens of the com- 
panies were to hold yearly inspections for the purpose of view- 
ing the armor. •^^ Evidently his plan did not materialize, for 
in 1548 word was sent to the mayor to find men provided with 
armor and horses, some with six axes, some with four and some 
three, according to their assessment rates."*"^ Again in 1579 
the mayor was commanded to provide armor for the men who 
had been levied. The armorers hearing that their wares were 
likely to be sold in large quantities, began to increase their 
prices. To remedy this the privy council instructed the mayor 
to send for the armorers to induce them to return to the reason- 
able prices they had been accustomed to ask.^" 

The city's part in providing for the defense of the realm 
extended to preparing ships of war with men, armor and food. 
It is only in the last decade of the century, however, that we 
find any reference to this. In 1591, 1596 and 1599 the Lon- 
doners furnished ships of war.""^^ In 1591 they prepared six, 
in 1596 ten, and in 1599 twelve ships. In the last case food 
was furnished by the city for the crew for two months. '^^ 

When the mayor was directed to provide the soldiers with 
uniforms, it was usually specified what kind of suits the men 
were to be given. In January, 1558, the mayor was directed to 
prepare 500 men, ready in harness, with white coats welted, 
with green and red crosses.'''' In 1562, though the style of the 
garments was prescribed, the mayor was free to choose the 

'"L. F. & D.. U. VIII, 13, II, 72. 

♦"Wriothesley. I. 3. 

""•Hist. :MSS. Com., XV Report, Appendix Y. 89. 

"C. S. r., 1591-1594, 55. 57 ; Hist. MSS. Com. Kept., Salisbury Papers, 

VI, r,. 

■^^C. S. p., 1598-1601, 312. 
■"Maehyn, 162. 



4S 

color, provided all the suits were to be alike. '^^ Sometimes 
money spent by the city in this regard was refunded by the 
council, after the mayor had sent au account of this coat and 
conduct money.^^ 

The time intervening between the levying of the men and. 
their actual service or embarkment for service was spent in the 
practice of the arts of war. In 1578 the mayor was directed to 
have 2,000 men trained', so that they should be in readiness at 
short notice.^^ In 1580 the same number was being trained, 
when the plague stopped short the work. With the cessation 
of the sickness the mayor was connnanded to renew the work of 
training the soldiers in the use of their weapons.^^ That the 
work might be better arranged, the mayor and aldermen were 
asked to confer with Sir Francis Knolles and Sir John l^orris.^* 
Late in 1588 articles were drawn up by certain experienced 
commanders for the pui*]30se of training a number of citizens 
in the military art. These were submitted by the privy council 
to the Lord Mayor for consideration.^^ 

Isot only did the city furnish men for the wars, but it al-^o 
provided quarterage for many of the companies from the north 
and central part of England that passed through London prior 
to their embarkation. In 1574 the mayor was directed to find 
provisions and lodgings for 300 soldiers who had lately come 
out of Holland, and were resting in England, before being sent 
to Ireland. "^"^ Again in 1592 Burghley sent word to the mayor 
to provide for 300 soldiers coming from certain counties to 
London.*^ ^ A short time after the order was rescinded on 
account of the plague which was then attacking London. 
Because of the dread of infection, the soldiers were not shipped 

"*A. P. c. l.'5.5S-1.^r.O. 122. 

"C. S. p.. 1.591-1594. 20. 

"/&(>/.. 1547-1.580, 586. 

"Reniein.. 2.30. 

"'Hist. :MSR. Com.. Report XV, Appendix V, 33. 

"'C. S. P.. 1.581-1590. 50.5. 

•"A. P. C. 1571-1575, 177. 

«'C. S. P.. 1591-1594. 211. 



44 

from London, but marched by land to avoid going near the 
city.«2 

When the men levied by the city became unmly during their 
service they were punished after their return by the mayor. In 
1587 the privy council directed the mayor to punish those sol- 
diers that, levied for service in the Low Countries, had mutinied 
against Captain Simpson. The lords specified that the punish- 
ment should be severe and extraordinary, that after the men 
had been tied to carts and flogged through Chepeside to Tower 
Hill, they should be placed in a pillory and their ears cut.^^ 

The mayor's duties as lord lieutenant were most apparent 
when Wyatt had entered Southwark and the fear that the rebel- 
lion wovild spread was rife in the city. The mayor gave orders 
that the drawbridge be cut and thrown in the Thames, for fear 
some of the citizens might join the traitor.*''* He gave further 
orders that the aldermen and sheriffs should wear their armor, 
and that the shop windows be closed, and that citizens stand 
within doors, armed, ready to take part if there should be any 
need.*'^ 

In addition to executing the functions of escheator and 
lord lieutenant, the mayor of London performed the duties of 
another county official in his capacity of coroner.''^ Technically 
it was the Lord Mayor who fulfilled the duties of this position, 
but on account of the exigencies of the municipal affairs the 
office was delegated to some appointee of the mayor and alder- 
men. The coroner's court might, however, be called before 
either the mayor or this deputy.^^ In 1515 Mr. Barnewell, who 
had been appointed coroner of London, held an inquest with 
twelve jurymen over the body of Richard Hun's son.^^ It was 
the mayor, however, who in 1537 took charge of tlie case of 

''C. S. P., 1591-1594, 266. 

"^C. S. P., 1581-1590. 41.5. 

^'Grafton's Chronicle, II, 541. 

'^ChronlrJe of Qnccn Jane and Queen Mary, 40-43. 

""Charter, 4 Ed. IV, in Hist. Charters. 92. 

"Coke, Fourth Institute, 250. 

"Hall, Chronicle, 573. 



45 

Robert Packenton, mercer, whose murdered body had been 
found by the great conduit in Chepe.*"^ 

A question regarding the authority of the city's coroner 
was raised in 1597, when that official was about to take view 
of a body slain in East Smithfield. The Lord Treasurer had 
written to the mayor to forbear to proceed in the matter, and 
had directed the recorder and some members of the common 
council to ascertain the jurisdiction of the city in that place. He 
asked that this ''stay" might not be used as a precedent to the 
injury of the city.^*^ A few months later the privy council wrote 
to the coroner directing him to make known to the recorder and 
Justice Southcote the time he intended holding inquiry over the 
body of one Bullinger, that they might assist him and advise 
him in the matter."^ In 1592 Elizabeth again interfered in 
the execution of the coronor's duties. In IS^ovember of that year 
a letter was sent to the Lord Mayor regarding one Ileriek, a 
goldsmith, who was supposed to have committed suicide by 
throwing himself from a great height.'''^ It appears that some 
persons had declared that the fall was accidental. If this were 
true, the queen's almoner would be deprived of some goods 
which otherwise would have gone to him. Elizabeth therefore 
required the mayor to summon before him the coroner and 
charge him to receive no verdict by inquisition until the evidence 
that the almoner had, be thoroughly known and given him. 
According to the charter of Edward VI, which gave Southwark 
to the city, the mayor, commonalty and citizens were privileged 
to appoint two coroners for the borough, and were to have all 
waifs and estrays, treasure trove and deodands.'^^ 

London was again treated as a shire in the appointment of 
the mayor as chief of the collectors of money for the crown. 
In 1524, however, when the most prominent men of every shire 
were appointed to give orders to the people that one-sixth of 

^^Grey Friars' Chronicle, 39. 
"Remem., 42fi. 
"A. P. r., 1578-15S0, 128. 
"7&w/., 1592, 280. 
"Historical Cliarters, 117. 



46 

every man's substance be given to the king, Wolsey was made 
principal officer of the commission for London.^^ Accordingly 
the cardinal sent for the mayor and certain aldermen and 
demanded that the money be paid. So great was the murmuring 
of the people, however, that this order was withdrawn and the 
people were given the privilege of offering what they wished. 
In 1540 the mayor, with the Earl of Sussex, the Lord Admiral, 
the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London, was a com- 
missioner in London for the collection of the subsidy,'^ while 
certain aldermen were appointed as assessors in their wards. 
At this collection foreign merchants residing in London were 
assessed with the citizens,'^^ but the privy council directed the 
mayor to forbear collecting the sums levied on four French 
merchants until they should hear again from the king.'^'^ A short 
time after this he was directed to excuse three other foreigners."^ 
In 1558 the mayor was directed to call all the collectors of the 
subsidy before him in order to charge them to make immediate 
payment to the exchequer of the sums collected.'^ ^ 

The mayor was authorized to imprison any citizen who 
refused or neglected to pay his share of the subsidy. In 1595 
and 1596 there were several persons imprisoned in the Counters 
for refusing to pay their assessments.^*^ In 1600 arose the 
question whether English subjects holding houses in the city, 
but not citizens of London, ought to be taxed with the Londoners 
where the subsidy was collected. The mayor wrote to the privy 
council asking for advice regarding officers of the Court of 
Chancery, Court of Wards, King's Bench and Common Pleas 
who, living within the city, had refused to pay the fifteenth 
levied upon them for service of the queen.^^ 

In the case of loans, also, it was to the mayor that the 

"^Hall, Chronicle. G04. 

"A. r. C, VII. 48. 

"L. F. & D., H. VIII, 10. 112. 

"/&W.. 361. 

"A. P. C. VII. 101. 109: L. F. & D.. II. VIII. 16. 435. 

"A. P. C. 1556-l,5.'iS. 366. 

'"Reniem.. 24. 20. 

*Ul)i(l.. 25. 



47 

crown appealed. In 1522 the king, wishing to borrow £20,000, 
sent to the city for the sum. The mayor requested this money 
of none but the wealthy citizens, who though protesting, agreed 
to give the required sum,*^ In 1577 the mayor was asked to use 
all the influence he could command to induce the wealthy men 
of the city to contribute money for the expedition that was being 
planned for Cathay, in which the queen and many of the nobles 
were interested.^^ 

It is evident that in carrying out this part of his many 
duties the mayor was brought into close contact with the lords 
of the council. These functions of a royal official, which had 
been granted, one by one, to the city, may have served to exalt 
the office in the eyes of the statesmen and other prominent 
personages of the realm. At any rate, the mayor was treated 
with great respect by the officials of the crown. As has been 
said at the coronation banquet of the sovereign, the mayor 
claimed the privilege of serving as a steward, and as such sat 
at one of the principal tables in Westminster.^'* The Lord 
Mayor was present at the court in 1533, when he and the alder- 
men, the heads of the guilds and the French ambassadors were 
invited to be present at the christening of Elizabeth.^^ Three 
days after the death of Henry VIII the Lord Mayor was sent 
for to attend the parliament chamber at Westminster, where the 
Lord Chancellor declared the death of the sovereign and charged 
the mayor to look after the safeguard of London.^^ Again, in 
1553, the Lord Mayor was invited to attend court at Greenwich 
and to bring with him six aldermen and six merchants of the 
staple and six merchant adventurers. Edward's death was then 
declared to them, while at the same time it was announced thai 
the successions of the crown had been determined upon by letters 
patent, to wliich they were sworn and charged to keep secret.^^ 

"Hall. ChrouMe. ()42. 

"A. P. ('.. 157r>-l,")T7. .301. 

"L. F. & D.. H. VIII. .5. 584 : Wriotheslev, 21. 

"C. S. P., Spanish. 15.31-1.533, TSn. 

'"'Wi-iotliesley. I. 178. 

^''CJirniiicIr Historii of Queen Jane (tinl Queen Marji, 2. 



48 

How great was the respect in which the office was held is 
shown by a statement contained in a diary kept by one of Eliza- 
beth's contemporaries, to the effect that the Lord Mayor is the 
greatest magistrate in the realm at the death of a king or queen 
of England.^® 



Chapteb IV. 

THE MAYOK AS A CITY OFFICIAL. 

The mayor was also brought more or less in touch with the 
crown officials in carrying out those duties which pertained 
directly to the city. This was especially true with regard to 
his functions as dispenser of the hospitality of the city. A\Tien 
any members of the royal family or nobility passed through 
London, it was the Lord Mayor who met them at the limits of 
his jurisdiction and conducted them in state through the city. 
At such times an address of welcome was usually made by the 
recorder,^ although in 1522, when Charles V, accompanied by 
Henry, rode through the city, it was "one Sir Thomas More" 
who addressed them.^ After Anne Boleyn was proclaimed 
queen she rode through the city. At Chepeside the mayor and 
aldermen drew up in line while the recorder welcomed her in 
behalf of the city, and the Lord Mayor presented her with a 
purse of 1,000 angels.^ At the reception given to Anne of 
Cleves, 1540, the mayor and aldermen, accompanied by six men 
of each of the twelve principal companies, rode with the queen 
to Greenwich, while the remainder of the crafts went by water 
to the castle.^ In 1549, when Edward VI rode from South- 

"Manningliam, 148. 

'Wriotheslev, I, 19. 

'Hall. 631. 

'Wriothesley, 18. 

*Grei) Friars' Chronicle, 43. 



49 

wark, the mayor and aldermen met him at St. Margaret's 
Church, Southwark, and rode before him to Charing Cross. 
There the aldermen stood in line until the king passed them, 
while the mayor continued his ride in front of the king to 
Westminster, In 1553, August 3, at the time of Wyatt's rebel- 
lion, the liverymen of all the companies were commanded to 
assemble in the Guildhall, as Mary had planned to speak to 
them.'^ The mayor and aldermen met her at the outskirts of 
the city and conducted her to the hall. The former carrying his 
mace, rode beside the Earl of Arundel, who bore the city's 
sword.*' He had presented the sword to Mary, who had given 
it to the earl to carry through the city. At the time of the 
procession in honor of her marriage with Philip, the mayor 
presented the queen with his mace, signifying that he delivered 
his authority to her. As she redelivered it to him he caried it 
in front of her, while in front of him were borne the two 
swords.''^ Again, two years later, when Philip and Mary passed 
through the city, the mayor bore the scepter in front of them.^ 
At Elizabeth's accession to the throne, too, the mayor carried the 
scepter before her.^ Many pageants were arranged for her, and 
at Charing Cross the recorder presented her with a heavy purse 
of gold.^*^ A year later, when she passed from Westminster to 
the Tower, although the journey was by water, she was con- 
ducted by the mayor, aldermen and liverymen of the com- 
panies.^^ In her progress of 1561^^ and again towards the end 
of her reign, the Lord Mayor, accompanied by the livery of the 
different companies, preceded her through London. ^^ 

In the same way the Lord Mayor was brought into close 
contact with the different ambassadors, as it was his duty to find 

"Grafton. II. 530. 

'^Chronicle Queen Jane and Queen Mary, 14; Grey Friars'' Chronicle, 



81. 



''Chronicle Queen Jane and Qneen Mary, 146, 151. 

'Maehyn, 129. 

'Hayward. Annals of Elizabeth, 10. 

"Nichols. Proffi'iesses of Elisaheth, 38. 

"Hayward. Annals of Elisabeth, 14. 

"Maehyn, 263. 

"Chamberlain's Letters, 29, 162. 



50 

accommodations for these representatives of foreign countries. 
In 1550 the privy council reprimanded the mayor for neglecting 
to provide the French ambassador with suitable lodgings, and 
ordered him to obtain a certain house immediately.^^ In 1580 
Sir Francis Walsingham wrote to the Lord Mayor requesting 
that a particular house be given the Spanish ambassador. But 
the Spaniard disliked the house offered and wished to obtain 
one oiitside of Temple Bar. This being beyond the city's juris- 
diction, it was impossible for the mayor to obtain it for hini.^'^ 
Three years later Elizabeth's secretary again wrote, requesting 
that the mayor provide the Swedish ambassador with ''a fair 
and convenient house," as well as three handsomely furnished 
lodgings for members of his suite. ^^ In 1597 Elizabeth sent word 
to the mayor to have prepared for the Polish ambassador some 
well furnished house belonging to a citizen of London.^''' In 
the same year the mayor was directed to have prepared one of 
two specified houses for the Danish ambassador. He was 
urged to have the house well furnished with hangings, beds and 
all necessary provisions of household stuffs. ^^ And again the 
next year the mayor was directed to provide lodgings for the 
deputies of the states of the United Provinces fitted out with all 
household necessities.-^^ 

Besides receiving and providing for the ambassadors the 
mayor also received all foreigners of note who came to the city. 
In 1520 the lords of the council sent Avord to Henry that the 
three gentlemen from France had been Avell received by the city 
officials.^" When the Lord Admiral of France visited England, 
in 1535, he was received in the city with great solemnity by 
the mayor, aldermen and crafts. ^^ When peace had beern 
declared between England and France, in 1546, the ambassador 

"A. r. c. i.5,")0-i.-)52. icr,. 

'"TMd . 11. 

"A. P. C. 1597. .302. 

'"Ibid., 363. 

"A. P. C. 1597-1598, 448. 

n.. F. & D.. H. VIII. 7. 890. 

•^Grey Friars' Chronicle, 37. 



51 

and his following rode in triumph through London, after having 
been welcomed by the chief officers of the city.-^ The form of 
welcome which the city had planned for the French representa- 
tives, together with the address written in French, was sub- 
mitted by the mayor to the privy council for correction. ^^ 
When the admiral arrived the mayor, in behalf of the city, gave 
him a present consisting of flagons of wine and boxes of wafers, 
and wax torches and candles.-^ At the time of Philip's arrival 
in England the mayor gave order that bonfires be built in every 
street as a sign of welcome,-^ Usually the mayor met these 
foreigners at the limit of the city's jurisdiction, on rare occa- 
sions, however, he went outside the limits to greet noted per- 
sons. ^^ 

One of the most important of his duties regarding the wel- 
fare of the metropolis was the mayor's oversight of the public 
health. As a health officer he had charge of the sanitary condi- 
tions of the houses, streets and lanes. In this he was aided by 
some minor officials of the city, the scavengers and the rakers, 
who were elected for this purpose in each ward. Any house- 
holder who neglected to keep his pavement in good repair or 
free from filth was reported. Because it was seen that the 
welfare of the people was endangered by the crowding of build- 
ings in certain parts of the city, the mayor was directed to send 
a list of foreigners residing in the city, for it had been reported 
that they dwelt "pestered up in one place."-''^ If it were found 
that such was the case, he was directed to separate them and to 
allow no more to reside in one place than he felt would be for 
the good of the city.^^ In order to lessen this congestion Eliza- 
beth had issued a proclamation that no more buildings be 
erected in the city's limits. Hearing, however, that new build- 

"Hall, 8G7. 

=«A. P. C. 1542-1.547, 494. 

"^Grei) Frini'fi' Vln-onielc, 51. 

=»Wriothesle.v. 172 : Machyii. (i»>. 

=°Wriothesle.v. 124. 

"Stow (ed. ir).3.SK (157: Coko. Fourth Inf^fiititc. 249. 

="A. P. C, 1.571-1575. 180, 100. 



52 

ings were nevertheless being constructed, the privy council 
ordered the mayor to send the names of all violators of this 
edict.'^ In 1590 another proclamation was issued which re- 
quired the observance of the statute declaring against the placing 
of filth within a certain number of miles of the city. By it the 
mayor was directed to give special commands to the sheriffs of 
Middlesex that all deposits of refuse be instantly reported.^*^ 

In order to prevent the spread of contagious diseases, the 
city's executives effected a quarantine by marking the infected 
houses. Sometimes this was accomplished by painting crosses 
on the doors, but, as these were easily erased by unscrupulous 
persons, the privy council directed that red crosses be nailed on 
the doors,^^ and watches placed before the houses to prevent the 
departure of any one from the contaminated house.^^ With the 
same end in view, the mayor endeavored to keep all public 
places clean and wholesome, and to prevent the gathering of 
large crowds to witness the performance of dramas and shows. ^^ 
That the disease might not spread beyond the city in times of 
plague, no one was permitted to leave London without permis- 
sion from the mayor.^'* At the time of the christening of 
Edward, in 1537, Henry sent word to the mayor to make 
proclamation forbidding anyone to attend the ceremony with- 
out the king's express invitation.'^"'' In 1582 the mayor of 
Oxford sent word to the mayor <>f London to restrain not only 
the merchants dwelling in infected houses from attending the 
annual fair, but as well all merchandise that had been kept in 
such houses. ^^ 

In 1593, when it seemed as if the city officials were lax in 
their attempts to check the disease, the pri\^ council com- 
manded the mayor with six of the aldermen to appear before 

»C. S. P.. 1581-1.500, 29. 

""A. P. C 1500. 430. 

^'Ihid.. 1592-1593, 374. 

=^?emem.. .331. 

^^Norton. in Collier's Reprints. III. 14. 

=*His1-. MSS. Com. Kept.. Snlishurv Papers. IT, 224. 

^''L. r. & D.. H. VIII, 12, II. 894. 

^"Remem., 332. 



53 

the Court of Star Chamber to render an account of his actions 
with regard to the plague.^ ^ 

During term time, when the city was accustomed to have a 
larger population than at other seasons of the year, additional 
precautions were taken. At such times it was the custom of the 
mayor to make a list of those places where lodging might be 
had. The houses that had contained any cases of infection 
during the two months previous to this were marked in such a 
way that no one would lodge or take meals therein. In making 
these catalogues the mayor endeavored to have the accounts 
written in so condensed a form that each one might be easily 
contained on one face of a sheet of paper, so that they might be 
hung in convenient and conspicuous places.^^ 

In the early summer of 1580, when the plague was known 
to be raging in Lisbon, the mayor wrote to Burghley requesting 
that he might be empowered to take such precautions upon the 
arrival of the ships from the port that the disease might not 
spread through the city.^^ A week later the mayor received a 
letter from the court authorizing him to take measures to pre- 
vent the merchants or mariners from lodging in the city or 
suburbs. The mayor was further authorized to direct the mer- 
chants not to discharge their merchandise until the goods had 
had time to be completely aired. Burghley also suggested that 
the mayor confer with the officers of the port regarding the best 
means to prevent infection. ^° 

After the dissolution of the monasteries the hospitals of the 
city were placed in charge of the mayor.*^ So early as 1538 Sir 
Thomas Gresham, then mayor, wrote to the king asking that 
the mayor and aldermen might have rule of the three hospitals 
near London. A few years after this privilege was granted by 
Henrv.^^ In order then that a person might be admitted to 

"A. P. C, 1592-1503. 2.3. 

'"'Wriffht, Qiirrn EJizahcth and her Times, II, ,183. 

'"Remein., 330. 

"An aoconnt of the hospitals of London will be found in Leonard, 
English Poor Relief, p. 26, seq. 
*-J,. F. & D., H. VIII, 2, 492. 



54 

Bethlehem, it was necessary to apply to the mayor. In 1550 
the privy council requested that two demented women be 
received into the hospital.'*^ Again one Hawkins was sent by 
the lords of the council to be admitted to either Little St. Bar- 
tholomew or Bethlehem, according as the mayor should decide 
which hospital would be the better one.^'* In 1557 the mayor 
was directed not only to have one Thomas Barrow committed 
to Bethlehem, but also to ascertain the whereabouts of his friends 
in order that they might be notified to look after him.^^ 

A list of the lands belonging to the hospital in Southwark 
was given to the Lord Mayor shortly after the borough was 
granted to the city, with the amount of allowances due to the 
poor.'*^ 

The attitude which the mayors of London assumed with 
regard to dramatic performances within the city was consistent 
with their policy as health officers. The dread of contagion and 
the dislike of crowds had early led the mayors to refuse the 
liberty of acting to dramatic companies. So early as 1543 
certain players belonging to the Lord Warden were sent to the 
Counter for acting against the mayor's order."*^ From that 
time on there were a number of persons imprisoned for like 
offenses, some of whom were released by order of the privy coun- 
cil, on condition that bonds were given that they would desist 
from further acting until especially licensed by the council.^^ 
Similar orders, combined with the request that all actors who 
had been directed to play before the queen be granted the oppor- 
tunity of practising in the city, constitute a large part of the 
correspondence between the mayor and the lords of the council.'*® 
In 1584 the Lord Mayor sent two aldermen to the court to 
confer with the privy council concerning the suppression and 
demolition of the Theatre and the Curtain. Except for the 

*'A. P. C. 15.50-15.52, 124. 

**JhUl., 1552-1554, 72. 

'"•JhUh, 1550-15.58, 68. 

^■•JhhL, 1.5.50-1.552. 242. 

"Ihiih, 1.543, 109. 

'^IhUl., 154(5, 407. 

'UUd., 1571-1575, 373 ; ibid., 1577-1578, 144, 436 ; Remem., 352. 



55 

Lord Chamberlain and the Vice-Chamberlain, all of the lords 
agreed to the project.^*^ In 1589 the Bishop of London was 
directed to confer with the Master of the Revels and one ap- 
pointed bj the mayor of London for the purpose of examining 
plays.^^ 

Closely connected with his duties as health officer was the 
mayor's work with the poor of London. In 1595, on account 
of the great suffering in the city, the Mayor not only gave orders 
that no corn was to be shipped by London merchants, but he also 
wrote to the Lord Treasurer begging him to intercede for the 
release of corn ships detained at Sandwich. He also asked the 
Lord Treasurer to urge the queen not to issue any licenses for 
the exportation of corn, on account of the great scarcity of grain 
throughout the realm.^^ The next year, as the famine had not 
abated, the council ordered the mayor to see that the wheat 
contained in certain vessels from the eastern counties be used 
for the poor and not engrossed by persons who wished to buy 
great quantities to sell again at high prices.^^ 

Besides preventing the exportation of grains, the mayoT 
endeavored to facilitate the importation of wheat and rye. In 
1596 the queen was informed by the mayor that the London 
merchants would earnestly strive to obtain wheat and rye from 
foreign countries, provided the vessels might enter port free of 
all duties. In order to relieve the stress, Elizabeth sent word 
to Burghley that the discharge of customs should date from 
October 25, and should continue during her pleasure.^* 

The mayors further tried to relieve the suffering of the 
poor by having alms given discriminately.^^ To prevent 
promiscuous giving, "whereby those who were more deserving 

'^"Wright, Queen Elizabeth and her Times, II. 228. 

"A. P. C, 1.589-1590. 214. For a fuller discussion of this matter see 
Collier, Annals of the Stage. 

"^Remem.. 378. 

'^Ibid., 37G. 

'*Hist. MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury Papers, A'l, .507. 

"This was prior to the poor law of 39 Elizabeth. Miss Leonard, 
English Poor Relief, p. 22 seq., has shown that the municipalities were 
the first secular institutions engaged in a systematic care of the poor. 



56 

of prison than of alms" received a great share, the major gave 
directions that collection for the poor shonld be taken at Paul's 
Cross after service, and that the money so given should be dis- 
tributed weekly to those who had the greatest need of it.°'' In 
cases where there was especial need the mayor directed certain 
well known and discreet persons to make the collections and 
distributions of money,^^ A conference regarding the poor in 
the city was held between the youthful king and the Bishop of 
London in 1551. The bishop advised the king to write to the 
mayor asking for information concerning the city's plans of 
dealing with its paupers.^^ The mayor, aided by two aldermen 
and six commoners, drew up a schedule of the degrees of poverty 
existing in London. By this it was shown that diflferent grades 
of poor were sent to different hospitals in the city. This sys- 
tematic report so pleased Edward that he gave the income of 
certain lands to the city for the maintenance of these institu- 
tions.^^ 

In 1571 the privy council called the attention of the mayor 
to the number of beggars that were permitted in the streets. 
He was urged to use some means, preferably by consultation 
with the Bishop of London, whereby the valiant and strong 
beggars might be punished and the poor and impotent might 
be provided for.^^ Again in 1576 the mayor was urged to follow 
the example of his predecessor, who had formed a means of 
ridding the streets of the great number of vagabonds and beggars 
by providing work for many of the unemployed.^ ^ 

The mayor had some oversight, too, of ecclesiastical and 
theological matters in the city. AVlien Henry's breach with 
Rome was complete the Lord Mayor was commanded to declare 
throughout the city that the Pope was but Bishop of Rome, and 

""A. P. C, 1571-1575, 52 ; Wriothesley, I, 77. 

"Remem., 129. 

'''Grafton, II, 530. 

''Ihid, 531. 

~A. P. C, 1571-1575. 52. 

"7&Jd., 1575-1577, 247. 



S7 

as such was worthy of no allegiance from the people of Eng- 
land.'^^ 

In the same year the Bishop of London examined the belief 
of John Firth and Andrew Hewet, and after finding them guilty 
of heresy delivered them to the mayor for punishment. '^^ At 
the trial of heretics in the Guildhall, in June, 1546, the accused 
persons, by acknowledging their belief, were declared "guilty 
by their o^vn confession," without trial by jury. In the list of 
justices the name of the Lord Mayor occurs first.^^ A week 
later the heretics were burned, and the Lord Mayor, with the 
Duke of ISTorfolk and other members of the council and certain 
aldermen, sheriffs and judges, was a spectator.*'^ In July of the 
same year the mayor, with the Duke of Norfolk, was again 
present at the burning of heretics in Smithfield.*"*^ 

In 1553 and 1551 the trial of heretics took place, not in the 
Guildhall, as in Henry's time, but in St. Paul's, again before 
the commission composed of the mayor, the bishop and members 
of the council.^" Later in that year the same commission sat 
in judgment of a monk of Ely who had struck a priest of West- 
minster while the latter was conducting mass. He was con- 
demned, being imprisoned at ISTewgate after having his hand 
cut off.^^ On December 16 the Dean of Winchester was tried 
before the mayor and bishop in St. Paul's. Being convicted, he 
was burned two days later at Smithfield.^^ 

In the early part of 1548 the mayor reported to the Lord 
Protector that he and the Bishop of London had found the 
wardens and curate of the parish church of St. Martin's guilty 
of destroying the crucifix and images of the saints. Instead of 
these they had placed about the church certain texts of scrip- 
ture and had painted the king's arms where the crucifix had 

"^L. F. & D., H. VIII, .5, 1487. 

'^^IhUh, G, im. 

"Wriothesley, 1(>7. 

^Grey Ftiars' Chronicle, 51. 

""Wrlothesley, IfiJ). 

^Machvn. 88; Grey Friavft' Chronicle. 77; Wriotliesley, 129. 

•"'Machyn. 8.5. 

■^Wriothesley. 132. 



58 

been. The mayor was directed to see that the wardens and 
curate followed the form established by the king for the realm.'^'^ 
A similar case of extreme protestantism in Elizabeth's reign was 
punished by the mayor by closing the doors of the church and 
imprisoning the persons concerned in the destruction of images 
and sacraments.^ ^ 

In 1574 it was declared that English citizens who were 
found guilty of hearing mass should be imprisoned until they 
had paid their iines."^ In 1580 one of the attorneys of the city 
was thought to hold extreme beliefs ; the mayor accordingly 
sent him for examinations to the Bishop of London and dis- 
missed him from his office in the city. The bishop, after ques- 
tioning him, found his faith conformed with the queen's belief, 
and requested that he be reinstated as city attorney. '^^ As the 
mayor did not immediately comply with his request, the bishop 
wrote to the lords of the council, declaring that as the attorney 
was conformable in religion he ought not to be removed from 
his position. The privy council therefore urged the mayor to 
readmit him."^"* In 1581 it was feared that many Recusants 
had left their homes in the rural districts and had gone to Lon- 
don, hoping, in the crowded city, to escape detection. The 
mayor was consequently ordered to direct the aldermen and 
deputy of each ward to make inquiries of all persons that had 
lately come to the city from the countrv, and to see that each 
perscm attended church.""'' A few months later the mayor was 
authorized to release all persons imprisoned for non-conformity, 
provided they could furnish bonds and securities. In being 
given their liberty, it was urged, they were more likely to come 
into contact wnth those who would give them instruction. If, 
however, it Avas found that they remained obstinate, proceedings 
were to be immediately instituted against them.'^^ In order to 

">A. P. C, 1547-1550, 25. 

"/?>?V7., 1558-ir)60, 77 ; ihifl, 1571-1.">75. 173. 

"/ft/V/.. 270. 

"Reniem., 124. 

'*TM(1. 

'"■IhUh. 127. 



59 

make the search thorough the mayor ordered the sheriffs to 
assist him.'^'^ 

In dealing with the foreign Catholics the mayor had to 
treat with the ambassadors, who were permitted to hold mass 
for their households, and who, in their zeal, admitted more than 
foreigners to their services. In 1560 a number of persons who 
had heard mass at the French ambassador's were imprisoned.'^^ 
Three years later, in order to prevent this evil, the mayor 
ordered the foreigners to appear before him once a week to 
receive systematic training in religion.'^ ^ After the mayor and 
aldermen had questioned them regarding their creed, certain 
ones were sent to the Bishop of London for further examina- 
tion.^° Those judged guilty were returned to the Lord Mayor 
for punishment,^ ^ which consisted in banishing them from Eng- 
land. ^^ As another means of preventing the attendance of 
English subjects at these Catholic services it was proposed to 
give the ambassadors houses only in conspicuous parts of the 
city, so that persons entering the doors might be easily ob- 
sen^ed.^^ It will be remembered that one of the mayor's duties 
consisted in providing lodgings for the ambassadors.^'* 

The command that the mayor imprison all priests and 
seminaries was increased ofter the popish plots against Eliza- 
beth were exposed. The mayor was directed to imprison per- 
sons known to be priests and Jesuits and to keep a list of all 
suspected persons, so that their actions might be carefully 
watched.^^ 

The apprehension of persons of the city concerned with 
the publication or possession of seditious books was also referred 
to the mayor. In 1546 the mayor was directed to examine the 

"C. S. p.. 1.581-1500. 108. 

"Nieliols. Proorcf^ses of ElhaT^cth, 82. 

™C. S. P.. Snnnish. 1.5.'i8-1567, 304. 

"T. S. P.. 1,547-1.580, 426. 

-'7/>/r/.. -1.S7. 

-■-Wright. Qveen Elizabeth and Jirr Time. 10. 

"■"IhhL. II. 87. 

"A. P. C. 1.5.58-1.560. .36. 

^Hist. MSS. Com., Kept. XII, Appendix IV, 297. 



6o 

searcher and a grocer's apprentice with regard to certain 
heretical books which had lately been brought from Flanders.*^ 
Philip and Mary in 1558 directed the mayor to search the house 
of certain printers in London, who were suspected of having in 
their possession some books impugning the Catholic faith.®'^ In 
1580 the mayor submitted to the Bishop of London a pamphlet 
by one John Newman, papist, sent to him by a justice of the 
peace of Surrey.^^ In 1582 a drifat of Catholic books was 
intercepted by the council. The books had been sent to some 
citizens of London, under pretense of being a barrel of worsted 
yam. The Lord Mayor was directed to enter the houses of the 
men to whom they were addressed, to arrest the men and make 
search for other suspicious books.®^ 

In 1575 it was discovered that certain Anabaptists had 
recently come from foreign countries and had settled in London. 
The mayor was directed to act with the Bishop of London in 
conferring with them. If they did not prove amenable to 
reason, the Lord Mayor was authorized to proceed against them, 
using his judgment either in administering corporal punish- 
ment or in banishing them.^° 

Closely connected with the part played by the mayor in the 
theological controversy was his position with regard to the 
religious life of the city. The wishes of the sovereign with 
regard to ecclesiastical affairs were made known to the London- 
ers through him. In 1551 he made proclamation that no holiday 
should be kept on St. Barnabas Day,^^ and in 1559 he instructed 
the aldermen to declare in their wards that the Epistle and 
Gospel should be read in English in every parish church.^^ 

Llis oversight of religious matters consisted in the appoint- 
ment of ministers to certain parish churches over which the city 
had the advowson, and in settling disputes between ministers 

"A. P. C. 154fi. 409. 

''UMd., 1556-1558. 346. 

*'Remem.. 30. 

*°Il)i(l., 31. 

"A. P. C, 1571-1575, 370. 389. 

"^Crr-ey Friars' Chronicle, 67. 

"'Wriothesley, I, 142. 



6i 

and their congregations. The mayor made arrangement for the 
three days' preaching services following Easter and Whitsunday 
at St. Mary Spittle. ^^ In 1581 Elizabeth appointed a certain 
person to take charge of the singing in Christ Church. At once 
the Bishop of London wrote to the mayor urging him to fill the 
position, as the overseeing of the foundation, the placing and 
displacing of ministers and the appointment and hiring of con- 
ductors belonged wholly to the city.^^ The Archbishop of 
Canterbury and the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1591 at- 
tempted to alter the regular service of the same church by 
having singing ministers placed there instead of the regular 
preachers. The mayor forthwith sent a petition from the inhabi- 
tants of the parish to the archbishop beseeching him to restore 
the former services. ^^ 

Any person who preached in the city without having taken 
Holy Orders was punished by the Lord Mayor. In 1537 a 
bricklayer preached the Gospel from one of the windows of his 
house. ^^ He was imprisoned by the mayor, but later, as he 
continued in his preaching, he was sent to Cromwell with the 
examinations and depositions taken at the trial before the 
mayor.^^ 

The mayor was also required to see that the proclamations 
regarding fasting during Lent and on holidays were carried 
out. In 1538 Sir Richard Gresham wrote to Cromwell that if 
the persons who had eaten meat on Ember days were not pun- 
ished, they would likewise eat it on Fridays and Saturdays. ^^ 
In 1543 the mayor was ordered to search throughout London 
for persons who had been guilty of eating flesh during Lent.^^ 
In the Lenten season of the year 1581 the mayor had the num- 
ber of butchers in the city limited to five. Each of the?e Avere 

^nvriothesley, II, 2. 

»*Remem.. 12G. 

**Ibi(l., 131. 

""L. F. & D., II. YIII. 12, If. rm. 

"Ibid., 624. 

'*/&?>/.. 13. II, .384. 

"A. P. C, 1543, lOS. 



62 

required to give bond that he would sell no meat except to those 
lawfully licensed to eat it.-^^*^ 

When the spire of St. Paul's was burned Elizabeth wrote 
to the mayor advising him to take speedy orders for its repair. 
As an incentive to the people to give money towards its recon- 
struction, she delivered 1,000m. in gold and a warrant for 1,000 
loads of timber to the mayor. ^''^ Somewhat later she wrote again 
to the mayor informing him that she had deputed certain of her 
council to confer with him regarding its reconstruction. ^°^ 

Another of the functions of the mayor, that brought him 
into close connection with the people of London, was that of 
chief of the companies. On receiving any important directions 
from the crown, he immediately summoned the companies to 
meet in their respective halls, when the news was imparted to 
them. In 1533 much displeasure was felt by Henry VIII on 
account of action taken by many of the citizens at the sermon 
during the Easter festival. Because the preacher had recom- 
mended that special prayers be offered up for the health of 
Queen Anne, many persons left the church. The mayor, on 
account of the king's displeasure, caused all the crafts and guilds 
to assemble in their various halls, when he commanded them 
"not only to abstain from murmuring about the king's mar- 
riage, but to command their own journeymen and servants, and, 
a still more difficult task, their own wives, to refrain from 
speaking disparagingly about the queen." ^°^ 

Any information which the crown officials were desirous 
of having imparted to the companies was sent first to the Lord 
Mayor. In 1555 the lords of the council wrote to the mayor 
directing him to call all the merchants trading in Guinea before 
him and to command them to refrain from further traffic in 
those parts until further orders should be taken. This order 
was issued because of the claim that had been made by the King 
of Portugal to that district.^''* 

""Remem., 393. 

"^Havward. Annals of Elizahcth. 88. 

"'C. S. P.. 1547-1.580. 178. 

"'C. S. P., Spanish. 1531-1.533. Gi(;. 

>"A. P. C, 1554-1556, 162. 



63 

In case the citizens of London received ill usage at the 
hands of the crown officials, they appealed through the mayor to 
the privy council. In 1585 Sir Wolstan Dixie, the Lord Mayor, 
sent a petition of Richard Puttenham to the council, complain- 
ing of the treatment he had received from Mr. Seckford as 
Master of Requests. ^°^ 

Complaints against the mayor were made to the crown. In 
1539 the Hungarian ambassador sent word to the queen of 
Hungary that he intended presenting the complaints of the 
emperor's subjects against the mayor to the Lord Privy Seal, 
and if he could not obtain justice, then he should apply to the 
king himself. ^*^^ In 1598 Elizabeth wrote to Sir Richard Sal- 
tonstall. Lord Mayor of London, informing him of a complaint 
which she had received from the Lord Admiral regarding his 
interference in maritime affairs. ■^^'^ In 1581 John Aylmer, 
Bishop of London, sent a characteristic letter to the mayor com- 
plaining of his unbecoming treatment of himself and the clergy. 
Instead of referring the matter to Elizabeth, he said that if the 
mayor did not treat him with more respect he would admonish 
him from the pulpit of Paul's Cross, ^Svhen the Lord Mayor 
must sit, not as a judge to control, but as a scholar to learn, and 
the writer, not as John Aylmer, to be thwarted, but as John 
London, to teach him and all London."^"^ 

From this examination of the mayor's duties as both a 
crown and city official, it is seen how much power was concen- 
trated in his hands. Aside from this administrative work, 
which was carried out by him alone, there is that part of the 
official business of the metropolis which was performed by the 
conjoint action of the mayor and the board of aldermen. This 
will be considered after the duties of each alderman in his own 
ward have b(^en discussed. 

""'C. S. P., 1581-1590, 281. 
'"''L. F. & D.. H. VIII, 14, I, 921. 
"'C. S. P., 1.598-1601, 57. 
"'Remem., 128. 



64 

Chapter V. 
THE ALDEEME^T AND THEIE WAKDS. 

Besides those duties which were incumbent on him as the 
chief executive of the city, the Lord Mayor represented one of 
the twenty-six wards of London in the court of aldermen. To 
the Lord Mayor's title was added the name of the company to 
which he belonged, while to the twenty-five other aldermen was 
usually added only the name of the ward they represented, 
although they were frequently members of the principal com- 
panies and represented much wealth. On account of their repu- 
tation for riches they were often called upon to lend money to 
the crown. In 1558 three aldermen lent money to Elizabeth, for 
which they were permitted to collect interest at 12 per cent.^ 
The truism that the wealth of the aldermen frequently exceeded 
that of the nobility of England is brought out by a letter of the 
Earl of Oxford to Burghley, in which he says that Alderman 
Haughton has so magnificent a home that few noblemen in 
England can equal it.- Much of the money had to be expended 
in the costly feasts which the aldermen as well as the mayor were 
required to give to the officials of London and strangers of note 
within the city.^ Then, too, the aldermen occasionally, at_the 
request of the mayor, provided lodgings for the foreigners in 
London.^ 

Much money, too, was spent by the aldermen in the changes 
of apparel which was required of them as well as of the mayor. 
It was necessary for them to have gowns and cloaks of the same 
three colors, black, violet and scarlet, to Avear on specified days. 
On the ordinary working days of the year the aldermen wore 
the black gowns ; on holidays either the violet or scarlet, accord- 
ing to the solemnity of the day. The violet gowns were worn 

^C. S. P., 1549-1580, 111. 

Ubid., 1595-1597, 57. 

^L. F. & D.. H. VIIT. 2. 4348; Wriothesley, II, G9; Grafton, II, 398. 

'Chamberlain's Letters, 00. 



65 

on more ceremonious occasions. The cloaks which were worn 
with these gowns were trimmed with fur for the winter months 
and with taffeta for the spring and summer months.^ 

The aldermen of the city were regarded by the crown offi- 
cials as being equal to the justices of the peace of the shires. In 
1526, when peace was declared between England and France, 
Wolsey commanded the attendance of the mayor and aldermen 
of London with the justices of the peace of the shires.^ 

According to an act of common council passed in the early 
part of the fifteenth century, when a vacancy occurred in the 
court of aldermen, the inhabitants of the ward left destitute 
elected four men. These names being submitted to the court of 
aldermen, one was chosen as being most worthy to represent the 
ward. The alderman-elect was then notified by the court to 
appear at a specified time before the mayor and aldermen for 
the purpose of taking his oath."^ In 1581, it was at the next 
regular meeting of the court of aldermen, that Mr. William 
Rowe, who had been elected by the court as the representative 
of Castle Baynard Ward, was directed to appear to be sworn into 
office.® When the first alderman of Bridge Ward Without was 
chosen, he was elected, not by the inhabitants of Southwark, but 
by the mayor and aldermen of London.^ 

There was a system of rotation in office among the alder- 
men. When a ward was left vacant the usual procedure con- 
sisted in the removal of another alderman from the ward he had 
been serving to the unoccupied ward, leaving the new alderman 
to take his place. If the conditions of the act of 1402 were 
really carried out the inhabitants of the ward must have been 
particularly expeditious in their choice, for in several cases the 
new alderman was transferred from an old ward to a new one 
on the day that the death of the previous alderman occurred. A 

'Stow (ed. 1633). 657. ' 

•Grafton. II, 398. 

'Wriothesley, II, 16. 

*Reiiiem., 2. 

'Wriothesley, II. 40; Holinshed, III. 1024. 



66 

consideration of the different aldermen representing Langbourne 
Ward from 1572-1605 will show the system of rotation. 

In 1572, February 19, John Langley, goldsmith, who had 
been elected alderman for Billingsgate Ward in 1566, removed 
from Queenhithe, where he had served as alderman for two 
years (having removed there in 1570, December 12), to Lang- 
bourne.^^ He served as alderman for that ward until his death 
in 1578, February 4. On that date James Harvey, ironmonger, 
moved to the ward from Coleman Street Ward,^^ which he had 
served from December 11, 1571. He remained in office until 
his death, representing that ward. On the day of his death, 
June 25, 1583, George Barnes,^^ haberdasher, removed from 
Tower Street Ward to take his place. Previous to this time 
George Barnes had acted as alderman for Bridge Ward Without 
from October 26, 1574, to October 19, 1576. He continued as 
alderman for Langbourne Ward until August 8, 1587, when 
he removed to Bassishaw. August 9 Sir John Spencer,^-'' cloth- 
worker, was elected alderman of the ward. He was one of the 
few men elected sheriff without having acted as alderman, 
having been made sheriff in 1583. In 1594, October 8, Nicholas 
Mosley,^^ clothworker, who had been elected alderman of Alders- 
gate in 1589, moved to Langbourne, where he remained until dis- 
charged in 1602, April 20. On that day Robert Lee,^^ merchant 
tailor, removed to Langbourne from Cordwainer Ward, which 
he had represented from July 31, 1599. Prior to this he had 
been alderman of Walbrook from October 18, 1593, to July, 
1599. At his death, on January 28, 1606, John Watts,^^ cloth- 
worker, moved from Aldgate. Before this he had acted as 
alderman for three wards, having been elected for Aldersgate in 
1594, October 26. He remained there until April 21, 1601, 

^"Remem., 27(">n. 
^'Und., 113n. 
"/&uL, 181n. 
"/&?>/., 172n. 
"Ibid., 80n. 
"^Ihid., ,Sii. 
^Ibid., 287n. 



66 

consideration of the different aldermen representing Langbourne 
Ward from 1572-1605 will show the system of rotation. 

In 1572, February 19, John Langley, goldsmith, who had 
been elected alderman for Billingsgate Ward in 1566, removed 
from Queenhithe, where he had served as alderman for two 
years (having removed there in 1570, December 12), to Lang- 
bourne.^^ He served as alderman for that ward until his death 
in 1578, February 4. On that date James Harvey, ironmonger, 
moved to the ward from Coleman Street Ward,^^ which he had 
served from December 11, 1571. He remained in office until 
his death, representing that ward. On the day of his death, 
June 25, 1583, George Barnes,^^ haberdasher, removed from 
Tower Street Ward to take his place. Previous to this time 
George Barnes had acted as alderman for Bridge Ward Without 
from October 26, 1574, to October 19, 1576. He continued as 
alderman for Langbourne Ward until August 8, 1587, when 
he removed to Bassishaw. August 9 Sir John Spencer,^"^ cloth- 
worker, w^as elected alderman of the ward. He was one of the 
few men elected sheriff without having acted as alderman, 
having been made sheriff in 1583. In 1594, October 8, Nicholas 
Mosley,^* clothworker, who had been elected alderman of Alders- 
gate in 1589, moved to Langbourne, where he remained until dis- 
charged in 1602, April 20. On that day Robert Lee,^^ merchant 
tailor, removed to Langbourne from Cordwainer Ward, which 
he had represented from July 31, 1599. Prior to this he had 
been alderman of Walbrook from October 18, 1593, to July, 
1599. At his death, on January 28, 1606, John Watts,^^ cloth- 
worker, moved from Aldgate. Before this he had acted as 
alderman for three wards, having been elected for Aldersgate in 
1594, October 26. He remained there uutil April 21, 1601, 

"Remem., 27nn. 
"IM(1., 113n. 
"Ihid., 181n. 
"7&!V7., 172n. 
"/h/r?., son. 
^Ihifl., 3n. 
**Ihid., 287n. 



Approximate size and shape of the wards of London during the Tudor period, made by applying 
^ Stow's descnption of the wards to the contemporary maps drawn by Ralph Agas and John 
Norden. 



7$< JSUr ,. 



%i>rr^ 




w/ TH our 



67 

when he removed to Tower Street Ward, where he remained 
until May 29, 1605. 

A glance, too, at the changes made in certain years shows 
the movements in the court of aldermen. If the elections took 
place in the wards, according to the act mentioned before, the 
death of an alderman must have necessitated in some cases as 
many as four different elections, or at the least two elections. In 
the early part of 1575, at the death of Koger Martin, Ambrose 
Nicholas was transferred to the vacant ward of Bread Street, 
leaving Walbrook, the ward he had represented, without an 
alderman. ^'^ John Rivers, then alderman of Broad Street, 
removed to Walbrook. ^^ In his place as alderman of Broad 
Street Wolstan Dixie was elected February 4.^^ That is, there 
were several changes among the aldermen after the death of 
Roger Martin, and it was not until the fourth change that a new 
man was added to the court of aldermen. 

A similar change is seen in 1602, when, on April 20, 
Nicholas Mosley was successful in obtaining permission to 
resign his office, thus leaving Langbourne without representa- 
tion.^*' On the same day Robert Lee moved from Cordwainer 
Street to Langbourne. ^^ It appears that the ward which he left 
vacant remained without representation till May 18, when Wil- 
liam Craven moved from Bishopsgate to Cordwainer. ^^ 

Whether the expression "removed" as used by the editors 
of the Remembrancia means really a change of abode, I am 
unable to state. According to the act of common council passed 
in Henry IVs reign, the aldermen were required to live in the 
wards they represented. This seems to have been the intention, 
too, of an earlier act, that of 1318, which declared that the 
goods of an alderman should be taxed wdth the other citizens of 
the ward in which he resided."^ And again, a letter of 1589, 

"Remem., 308. 

^^Ihi(L, 38. 

'^Ihkh, 435. 

'^lUd., 80. 

^UUiU 3. 

-''TUd., 211. 

-'Strype, AmxiU. V. 3G3. 



68 

sent by the council to the mayor, seems to point towards the 
enforcing of the same idea. This letter complains of the action 
of the city in electing Mr. Giles Gurton as one of the aldermen 
of London. Previous to this time he had been elected sheriff, 
but as he did not wish to serve he paid the accustomed fine and 
was released from the office. Later he removed to Sussex, where 
he proved himself of so great value to the people of the county 
that they petitioned the privy council to have his election as 
alderman annulled. It was because the people of Sussex did 
not wish him to be removed from their county that the privy 
council wrote to the mayor urging that he be freed from all 
municipal offices. ^^ In one of Chamberlain's letters to Dudley 
Carleton he speaks of the resignation of many of the alder- 
men, and in giving the reasons for their acts says that Sir 
Richard Mosley wished to resign so that he might go to the 
country to live ;^^ and Cavendish gives an account of a quarrel 
which William Fitzwilliam had with the aldermen, which led 
him to resign his office and to depart into the country.^*' But 
a different light is thrown on the question by a letter which was 
sent by the privy council to Alderman Saltonstall, governor of 
the Merchant Adventurers and resident at Stode.^^ The fre- 
quent change of the aldermen from the representation of one 
ward to that of another also adds to the impression that they 
did not change their abode. Moreover, the fact that the alder- 
man's deputy did reside in the ward would obviate the necessity 
of the alderman's living in the same district. It would seem 
then, that attempts were made by the city to compel the residence 
of the alderman in the ward which he represented, but that the 
attempts were not crowned with success, and that in some cases 
the alderman did not actually live within the city's limits. The 
latter, however, might have been but temporary. 

A person who refused to accept the office of aldennan after 
he was elected to the position was imprisoned until he agreed 

^A. P. C. 1588-1580. 4. 
*'Chainberlfiin's Letters. 132. 
"Caveiiflish. L/ff of Wolscv. 189. 
"C. S. P., 1595-1597. 17. 



69 

to take the oath of office. In 1542 Thomas Bhinke was elected 
alderman of Bishopsgate at the death of William Paget. As he 
refused to accept the office, he was committed to ward at the 
house of one of the sheriffs for five days. At the end of that 
time he took the oath of office, but was permitted to resign 
immediately, as he declared that he was unable to perform the 
duties required of an alderman.-^ He was required, however, 
to pay a fine of 400m. In 1547 John Wislie, who refused to 
accept the office of alderman, was imprisoned at iSTewgate from 
April 13 to April 21, when he took the required oath. He was 
then permitted to resign, on condition that he paid a fine of 
300m. ^® He was compelled to pay but 100m. out of hand, 
being given a year and a quarter to pay the remainder. With 
this payment he was discharged of all the offices in the city. In 
1571 Sir Richard Martyn agreed to accept the office of alderman 
on condition that the court of aldermen and court of common 
council agree that he should forever be free of the office of 
sherifi'.so 

In 1545 Richard Jarvis, desiring to be discharged from 
his aldermanship, appealed to the privy council, which granted 
him letters patent freeing him from his office. Immediately 
after the mayor and aldermen went to Greenwich and spoke 
with the king and council so effectively that Jarvis returned to 
the court of aldermen.^ ^ In 1558 the queen wn*ote to the Lord 
Mayor and aldermen requesting that Simon Lowe be exempt 
from the offices of sheriff and alderman during the time he 
remained in her service. ^^ 

Quite similar to the process by which a man was freed from 
accepting the duties of alderman was that by which an alderman 
"gave over his robe." In each case application for the privilege 
of resignation was made to the mayor and aldermen. A sum 
was then named which the alderman was required to pay to the 

■■''Wriothesley, I. 1?A. 
'^Thifl, 183. 
'"Remem.. 1. 
="Wriotlieslev. T. i.->4. 
'=C. S. P.. 1547-1.3SO. 114. 



70 

city for his exemption from service. In 1549 the £500 paid 
out of hand by the retiring alderman of Portsoken was used for 
purchasing wheat for the city.^^ In 1550 Christopher Aleyn 
was required to pay 200m. for the privilege of resigning, 100 
of which was to be paid at once and 100 to be paid in the next 
nine months. For the payment of the latter sum two sureties 
were bound with him. In 1551, when liobert Chersey resigned, 
he gave a house valued at £10 a year to St. Bartholomew's Hos- 
pital for the maintenance of the poor.^'* 

Sometimes aldermen were permitted to resign without 
being required to pay a fine to the city. In 1546 three alder- 
men, ^^ and again, in 1550, o]ie otlier were permitted to resign 
without payment of a fine.^'' 

For unseemly behavior an alderman was deprived of his 
office. The court of aldermen in 1587 wrote to one of their 
number requesting his resignation.^'^ In August of 1602 Sir 
Richard Martyn, on ^'account of his unfitting demeanor and 
carriage," M-as removed from his aldermanship. In May he 
had appealed for permission to retire,^^ declaring that he was 
insolvent.^ ^ Evidently, however, the favor M'as not granted, and 
he gained his end by his misbehavior. 

During their term of service the aldermen held other 
important positions in the city, in the House of Commons and 
in the great commercial companies. Thomas Seymer, alder- 
man, had also acted as mayor of the staple at Westminster and 
mayor of the staple at Calais.^^ In 1595 Alderman Saltonstall 
was governor of the Merchant Adventurers at Stode.'*^ Alder- 
men were also appointed by the crown officials to positions 
within the city, answerable only to the crown. Sir Richard 

='nVriothesley, II, 15. 

^*IhuJ., 47. 

^Ihid, I. 163. 

^'IhhL. II, 39. 

^'Reniem., 2. 

^Il)i(l.. 3. 

^Thniiiherlain's Lrtters. 1.S2. 

«»L. F. & D.. H. VIII. .5, 1005. 

"C. R. r., 1595-1597, 17. 



71 

Martyii, who was elected alderman in 1597, continued to hold 
the office of Master of the Mint.^^ In 1591 Alderman Henry 
Billingsley received a warrant of £400 a year for his services as 
collector of customs in London and £640 for the salaries of 
fourteent assistants at £40 a year.^^ In April, 1525, Sir John 
Munday, alderman of London, was appointed justice for the 
Merchants of the Steelyard on account of the negligence of Sir 
Lawrence Alymer in fulfilling the duties of the office. Sir 
Ralph Warren was appointed to the same position in 1537.^^ 
The aldermen frequently represented the city in the House of 
Commons. In 1554 and 1555, Martin Bowes; in 1557, Wil- 
liam Garrard ; in 1586, Edward Oshome ; in 1588, George 
Barns, and in 1592, John Hart, aldermen, were elected as 
representatives of the city.'*^ 

Each alderman was responsible for the general order of his 
ward. To enable him to carry out this part of his work, there 
was annually elected at the ward mote of each -ward a number 
of men who were to act on the ward mote inquest.^^ The 
ward mote consisted of the householders of the ward, summoned 
to a meeting by the aldermen on the feast of St. Thomas.^*^ The 
size of the ward mote inquest varied, each ward having its 
regular number. This number varied from twelve to twenty, 
Chepe and Candlewick having the smallest numbers, and Bridge 
Without and a part of Earringdon Without the largest numbers. 
Between these extremes were the other numbers, seven wards 
having thirteen men, six, fourteen, and so on. Lime Street, one 
of the smallest of the wards, had sixteen men on the inquest. 
The ward having the largest number of men on the inquest was 
Earring-don Ward Without. This ward was divided into three 
parts, and though there was but one alderman with his deputy 
to act for the entire ward, each part had its own distinct number 

*^Reineni., 1. 

"C. S. P.. 1591-1594. 17. 

^^L. F. & D., H. VIII, 4, 1298 ; ibid., 12, II, 20. 

«Parl. Blue Books. 391, 393, 397, 418, 429. 

"Stow (ed. 1633), 657. 

"Laws and Customs of Landoih 1S5. 



72 

of common councilmeu, scavengers, constables and ward mote 
men. For the ward mote, tw^o parts had twelve each, with 
twenty for the third part. These inquest men had full power 
and authority for one year to inquire into all cases of misde- 
meanor in the ward. These cases were reported to the aldermen 
as often as he thought expedient. It was necessary, however, 
that he heard the reports of the inquest once a month at least.^^ 
The verdicts were given by parishes. The cases w^orthy of trial 
were indicted by the aldermen, and were brought before the 
court, meeting every every Monday in the Guildhall.'*^ 

At any time of great disorder in the city the mayor might 
command the aldermen to repair at once to their wards and to 
require the inquest to make a direct report to them. In 1550, 
April, the mayor caused all the aldermen to inquire of their 
inquests concerning all misdemeanors since Candlemas. The 
trial of the indictments presented by the aldermen necessitated 
the mayor's court to sit for several days.'^'' 

In case of death or removal of any of the grand jury the 
aldermen called a ward mote for a new election. The aldermen 
reported the non-appearance of all inquest men to the mayor, 
who saw they were properly i^unished.^^^ 

In addition to the election of the grand jury at the annual 
meeting in December, there w^ere other officers chosen for the 
ward. ^'The most sufficient, honest and discreet men" of the 
ward were chosen for the common counciP^ for one year, and 
were sworn into office before the aldermen. The scavengers and 
constables were also elected at this time. The nimiber of men 
chosen to act in these capacities was also determined by custom, 
the more congested parts of the city having a greater number of 
scavengers as well as constables. The number of the former 
officers varied from two to eighteen. Farringdon Within had 
the greatest numl^er, while Bassishaw and Line Street had but 

*^Stow (ed. 1()33), 669. 
*"L. F. & D., H. VIII. 3. 3657 
""Wriotheslev. IT. 36. 
"Stow (ed. 1633), (W>^. 



73 

two each. The commonest number of scavengers for a ward was 
six; that of constables was eleven. Bassishaw again had the 
smallest number, two, and Farringdon Within the largest, 
seventeen. Finally the raker' and beadle were elected at this 
meeting. The former acted with the scavengers in attending to 
the sanitary conditions of the streets, wdiile the latter seems 
to have been the presiding officer of the grand jury of the ward, 
for, after giving the number of men on the ward mote inquest. 
Stow adds, "and the beadle." He also had much to do with the 
impanelling of the petty jury, as he was required to send the 
names of six substantial householders to the mayor, who then 
gave the list to the sheriffs. These persons were then sum- 
moned by the sheriff to appear at the court held in the Guildhall. 
The beadle was also connected with the constables. He was the 
custodian of the roll which the constables kept of their pre- 
cincts. Innholders were required to report the names of all 
strangers remaining longer than two days to the constable. 
These names were then given to the beadle, who saw to it that 
each person remaining longer than two days was under frank- 
pledge.^^ By means of this custom the aldermen were able to 
make reports of the number of foreigners dwelling within their 
wards.^'* The beadle likewise aided the constables in the arrest 
of disorderly persons. ^""^ 

At the ward mote there is no account of the election of the 
alderman's deputy. It would seem then that the alderman 
appointed the person to act in the ward for him. In 1550, how- 
ever, after the alderman of k^outhwark had been sworn into 
office, he and the mayor rode through the borough. At the 
Bridge house a number of persons of the borough were assem- 
bled. To them the mayor presented the alderman and appointed 
two de]nities to act with him for the preservation of order.^'^ 
In each ward the deputy was responsible, with the constable, for 
the apprehension of persons guilty of misdemeanor. In 1591 a 

°^Stow (ed. 1633). 670. 

'^*Hall. 829; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept., Salislmry Papers. IV. 223. 
'^'Middleton. A trick to Catch the Old One. IT, 1 ; Remem., 266. 
''•Wriothesley. II. 40. 



74 

letter was sent from the privy council to the mayor directing 
him to have the al4ermen's deputies and constables of certain 
wards arrested, for they had not only neglected to commit to 
prison certain lewd and seditious persons, but had permitted 
them to wander up and down the streets. ^'^ 

The alderman's direct connection with his ward is seen in 
the muster of troops. It has been seen that when there was 
need of men for the military service, a commission specifying 
the number required of the city was sent to the mayor as Lord 
Lieutenant of London. After receiving his commission, the 
mayor sent his precept to the aldermen, requiring them to go to 
their wards for the purpose of enrolling a certain number.^^ 
When the muster was made, the aldermen examined the men 
to see that they were equipped with swords and daggers, and 
that those who were qualified to act as archers were provided 
with proper weapons.^ ^ 

In 1545, when the city furnished 1,500 men, there was a 
general tax of the fifteenth levied on the wards to provide for 
the equipment of anus. In order to prevent the delay that 
would necessarily accompany the collection of the tax, each 
alderman paid the sum required of his ward,^^ and afterwards 
reimbursed himself with the money collected. Preceding this 
muster of troops some members of the privy council sat in 
London and demanded a loan from the citizens to aid in the 
undertaking.^^ Because one of the aldermen would not pay 
the sum required of him, he was sent as captain to Scotland.®^ 

When any money was to be granted by the city, each 
alderman went to his own ward and in the accustomed places 
urged the people to grant the sum that was required of them. 
In 1522, August 20, when it was necessary for Henry to have 
more ready money, Wolsey summoned the mayor and aldermen 

"A. P. C, 1591, 300. 

'"Grafton, II, 460. 

"L. F. & D., n. YIII. 14, I, 940 : Wriothesley. II, 16. 

'"Ibid., 159. 

'^Grey Friars' Chronicle, 48. 

"Wriothesley, I, 151. 



75 

to appear before him. He then told them to assemble the people 
of wealth in the city, in order to ascertain the value of their 
property. Though the aldermen protested, the cardinal was 
obdurate. Each alderman, therefore, went to his own ward and 
named those who were reported to have goods of great value.^^ 
These then appeared before Wolsey and made the loan. Three 
years later, when the sixth part of every man's goods was 
demanded, the aldermen again assembled the people in their 
wards. The Londoners, however, openly refused to grant the 
request, declaring they had given enough money already.^'* In 
making the assessment for his ward it was customary for the 
alderman to take with him one or more of the chief commoners 
as he made the circuit of his ward. In 1545 each alderman, 
with two commoners, summoned before him all persons whose 
goods were valued above £40, and urged them to make a loan to 
the king on account of his affairs with Scotland and France. 
They also urged the people to pay immediately.^^ 

When a loan was required of the city the aldermen called 
before them only those persons whose property was valued above 
a certain sum. This limit varied in different years. In 1545 
it was £40, while four years later half that sum was the mini- 
mum.*'*' In 1576 those persons whose property was valued at 
£50 and upwards were assessed.*^'^ When a loan of £20,000, 
in 1553, was required from the city, the aldermen asked the 
money from those who could afford to pay £100 at least.*^® This 
sum was collected in a week's time, and was paid immediately 
to the queen's cofferer. ^^Hien Elizabeth, in 1598, wanted to 
borrow £150,000 of the city, she offered to the aldermen as a 
security £500 of her land in mortgage and the customs of 
London.*"'^ If a person felt that the aldermen had charged him 
unduly he might appeal to the mayor for relief."** 

•'Hall, 645. 
'^ThUh, 608. 
-Wriotlieslev, I. 155. 
•V&W., II, 23. 
"C. R. P.. 1.547-1580, 43. 
•'Wriothesley, II. 102. 
"Cliaiubevlain's Lrttrrsi, 31. 
'"L. F. & D.. H. VIII. 8. 470. 



76 

One of the most important of the alderman's duties in con- 
nection with his ward was his oversight of the watch. Ordi- 
narily it was the duty of the alderman's deputy and the con- 
stables to see that the peace was duly kept by the inhabitants of 
a ward, but in times of great excitement the aldermen remained 
with the constables to see that they performed their duty. At 
the time of the great rising of the apprentices of London against 
the foreigners the mayor sent for all the aldermen to appear at 
the Guildhall, where it was announced that the privy council 
had heard that a general rising was feared for the next day. 
Each alderman then went to his ward and sent word that no 
man should leave his house after nine o'clock till seven the next 
morning, and that no watch should be kept.^^ This last condi- 
tion was imposed because it was asserted that it was impossible 
to tell who might be connected with the plan, and it would be 
dangerous to keep any armed men in the city. The aldermen 
were directed to ride about the city to see that the orders Avere 
carried out. When the rising did occur, the city officials were 
severely reprimanded by Henry, who declared that if the alder- 
men had not connived at the plot the disorder could not have 
occurred.'^ ^ 

At other times, when a riot or conspiracy was feared, the 
constables' watch was increased by the addition of "honest 
householders" of the ward.'^^ In 1531 the mayor received word 
from the privy council that the king desired all physicians to be 
excused from the watch by night. "^ "WHiile watching during the 
night was consigned to the householders of the wards, the gates 
of the city were guarded during the day by members of the 
companies."^ In 1551 the watch was particularly strong. Early 
in the year the mayor and certain aldermen were required to 
appear before the privy council, where they were informed of 
Somerset's conspiracy, and Avere directed to see that order was 

'^ITall. 588. 

'V7)(V?.. 590. 

"Wriotheslev, I, 359. 

"L. F. & D., H. VIII, 5, 549. 

'"'Grey Friars' Chronicle, 65. 



77 

maintained in the city by four distinct methods, viz., by the 
watch, by correction of vagabonds, by repulsion of strangers 
coming into the reahn, and by the reformation of disorders 
in the churches."^^ In October they were again before the 
council, when it was declared that a watch of the householders 
should be kept at night from nine to five.'^'^ Two days after the 
court of aldermen sent precepts to certain of the head companies 
requiring them to place two men at each gate of the city, to 
remain there from six to seven, to see that no masked men or 
masterless person entered the city.'^^ This was maintained for 
one month's time, when the court of aldermen attempted to dis- 
pense with the watch by day.'^^ But the next day orders were 
sent to the mayor directing him to double the guard and to see 
that a privy watch was made throughout the city twice a week.^*^ 
A week later another message was sent to the mayor directing 
that the city be well guarded during the next day and night.^^ 
Responding to the request, the mayor sent for the aldermen and 
then declared to them that for the safeguard of the city every 
alderman should, by himself or by his deputy, cause every con- 
stable to warn all the householders in his precinct to look after 
his household and family, and to see that all kept within doors.^^ 
In addition to the watch of the householders and constables 
in times of excitement the aldermen or their deputies were 
required to ride about the city during the night watches.^^ In 
1551 each alderman in his turn appointed two of the common 
councilmen to ride in his place.^* These men were to see that 
no constable opened the gates of the city. At the time of Mary's 
accession two aldermen or their deputies rode about the city, 
both within and without the walls, accompanied by eight of the 

'"A. P. C. 1550-1552. 257. 
"Wriotlipsley. II. 57. 
"77)jV/.. 58. 
"/&/f/., 62. 

^"A. P. C. 1.5.50-15.52, 425. 
'V?>!V7., 4.32. 
^^Wriothesley. I, 62. 
^HUd., 23. 
"Vhfff., 58. 



78 

common councilmen,®^ In 155-i news of an uprising in Kent 
was brought to the Lord Mayor by the Lord Chamberlain, 
whereupon a court of aldermen was summoned for that after- 
noon. This court decided that the mayor should ride about the 
city during that night and every succeeding night until the 
danger should be over, two aldermen should oversee the watch.^^ 

The so-called watches held on St. John's (midsummer) 
and St. Peter's eves were rather elaborate and gorgeous 
processions through the streets, lighted with bonfires and 
torches, than marches through the city for the preservation of 
order. On these days the chief officers of the city, accompanied 
by the mayor's special officers and some of the more prominent 
members of his company, marched through the city from one 
side to the other. Besides this, there were the persons taking 
part in the pageants and the Morris dances.^^ It was customary, 
too, for the wealthier citizens to place tables covered with viands 
and drinks on the pavements in front of their houses, "whereof 
they would invite their neighbors and passengers also to sit and 
be merry with them in great familiarity."^* 

On account of the expenditure that must necessarily accom- 
pany so great a display, the citizens w^ere forbidden to hold the 
watch at times when they had been already at great expense. 
The first order that the watch be dispensed with, came from the 
crown in 1539, and seems to have caused much discontent among 
the people at large.*^ That year the city had been at great 
expense but a few weeks previous to midsummer in fitting out 
the muster of citizens at Mile End. As the order from Henry 
did not reach the city until ten days before the vigil of St. John, 
the mayor and his officers had already prepared the pageants 
and the order of marching. Five years later, because of the 
expense of the wars, the show^ accompanying the watch was again 
given over, although the mayor and the sheriffs rode through 

«°Wriotheslev. I. 87. 
''Ibid., 107. 
"Stow. 127. 
"^Thhh, 12(5. 
"•■'Wriotliesley, T. 100. 



79 

the city and the aldermen marched through their particular 
wards. ^*^ Two years after the court of aldermen attempted to 
abolish the institution entirely by declaring that on neither 
midsummer's nor on St. Peter's eve should the watch l)e 
held ; instead one hundred constables preceding the mayor and 
his officers should march through the city.®^ Two years later, 
however, during the mayoralty of Sir John Gresham, the 
pageantry was revived with a great display of splendor and 
wealth.''^ After that the show was again forbidden, ^^ and in 
its place the mayor and aldennen were required to march 
through the city to seek out offenders.^* 

Besides the processions on these two days, there were 
certain other holy days on which the mayor and aldermen were 
expected to attend divine service in a body. On Twelfth Day,^*^ 
Candlemas,^^ Palm Sunday,®''' Good Friday,^^ Whitsuntide,^® 
they heard sermons at Paul's Cross. Except for Good Friday 
and the Tuesday in Whitsuntide, when violet was worn, they 
wore their scarlet gowns at all these services. -^^^ The three days 
following Easter they attended service at St. Mary Spital, again, 
except for Wednesday, when they wore violet, wearing their 
scarlet robes. ^*^^ On the eve of St. Bartholomew they attended 
service at St. Magnus' Church, after which they rode through 
the fair.^°- At the seiwices in St. Paul's the mayor sat in the 
dean's seat or in the choir. A^Tien the services were in St. Paul's 



'"Grey Friars' Chronicle, 47. 
•'Wriothesley, I, IGO. 
*UU(1., II, 3. 
"/&i(f., 41. 

•*A. P. C, 1558-1560. 107. 
"Nichols, Progresses of Elisabeth, 82. 
"Maehyn, 225. 
"Wriothesley, II. 35. 
"Stow (ed. 1633"), 652. 

"Wriothesley, II, 14, 40; Letter Book V, 230b, in Simpson. St. 
PuuVs, 89. 

ioog!,.gy Friars' Chronicle, 89. 
"^Maehyn, 131. 
^"•-Stow (ed. 16,33 K 6.52. 



8o 

Clnirchyard, seats were placed for the mayor, aldermen and 
their wives. -^"^ 

The processions to the church and in the church, which had 
been abolished by Henry except in cases of particular solemnity, 
as at the thanksgiving service at the birth of Edward, were 
revived by Mary.^'^'* In 1553, on St. Andrew's day, a general 
procession was begun in St. Paul's Church, with the parsons 
and curates of London and the mayor and some of the alder- 
men. This was continued for three days following. ^'''^ A 
general procession through London, consisting of the school 
children, sextons, clerks, priests, bishops and mayor and alder- 
men in their liveries, was held in 1555.^^^ In Elizabeth's time 
processions were abolished for all days except All Soul's Day, 
when the aldermen and sheriffs met at the mayor's house, 
wearing their scarlet gowns and cloaks trimmed with fur.^°'^ 
At the Guildhall they were met by the mayor's company, with 
the bachelors and gentlemen ushers, who walked before them, in 
the procession to Paul's. This procession, however, was more in 
the nature of a ceremonial connected with the installation of a 
new mayor than of any particular religious significance. 

Sometimes the aldermen were required to act as the cus- 
todians of prominent persons who had been guilty of misde- 
meanors.^*^* In 1554 the Duke of Suffolk and Lord John Grey 
were confined at tlie house of Sir Christopher Warren for three 
days, after wliicli they were taken to the Tower.^^® In 1579 
Alderman Dixie held as a prisoner, by order of the privy 
council, the wife of one Johnson, He Avas directed to keep her 
as a close prisoner, allowing no one to hold conference with her 
until she had been examined by the recorder and Thomas 
I*^orton.^^" In 1586 William Copley was committed to the 

""Letter Book V, 224. 2.37. in Simpson, /. c. 89 ; Wriotheslev, I, 35. 
"'*Ihi(J., 05. 00. 

'""'Grey Friars' f'hronirlc, 85. 
'"'Machvn. 92. 
"'Stow"(e(l. 108.3). 057. 

'""Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.. Salishnry Papers, V. 139. 
^"^Chronirle Q. Jfuir avd Q. Mary. 53. 
: ""A. r. C, 1578-1580, 289. 



care of Alderman Radeliffe during the time that the council 
was at Fotheringaj. The alderman wrote to Secretary Davison 
that he found the young man "so tractable as to be easily won 
to be a good Christian."^^^ In 1600 Sir Robert Drury was 
committed to the custody of Aldennan Saltingstall because he 
had spoken in the blustering way about living in France. -^^^ 

The body of aldermen, as well as the mayor, was regarded 
by the crown officials as an important factor in the municipal life 
of London. At the accession of Edward VI the mayor and alder- 
men, dressed in their scarlet robes, awaited the king's herald in 
the Guildhall, and then accompanied him to St. Magnus' 
Church, where proclamation of Henry's death and Edward's 
succession to the cro^\^l was made.^^^ 



Chapter VI. 

COURT OF ALDERMEI^. 

In addition to the functions which the aldermen exercised 
within their own wards, they controlled to a great extent the 
life of the city by the rules and regulations which they enacted 
in the court of aldermen. This court, consisting of the mayor 
and the aldermen, was held in the Guildhall every Tuesday and 
Thursday, except holidays and the week preceding Christmas^ 
and Easter, and the summer vacation.^ It might also be sum- 
moned at any other time by the mayor. It regulated the watch 
and the training of the soldiers ; it disposed of the property and 
the lands of the city ; it advised the mayor in questions relating 
to the price of foods and the issuing of proclamations, and it set- 
tled all disputes over admittance to the freedom of the city, as 

"'C. S. P.. 1581-1590, 3G5. 
"'Chamberlain's Letters. 98. 
"'Wriothesley. I, 178. 
^Rtow (ed. 1083). 6G4. 
'Wriothesley. II, 87. 



82 

well as all those controversies between companies which were 
referred to it by the mayor. 

Although the order that the city should be safely guarded 
in any times of danger was sent to the mayor, it was the court of 
aldermen that decided upon the manner of executing this com- 
mand. In 1549, when there was a general fear lest the rebellion 
of Somerset should spread through the city, the mayor sum- 
moned the court of aldennen. There it was decided that the 
mayor should ride about the city to see that the constables kept 
the hours of the watch that had been appointed by the last court 
of aldermen, and that every night following for three months 
each alderman should ride in his turn.-^ But as the danger 
increased rather than abated, it was decided at a court held at 
the expiration of that period that two aldermen should ride 
about the city every night and that the companies should guard 
the gates of the city by day.* In 1550, too, a court decided 
that two aldermen should ride through the city by night to 
oversee the watch, one taking the eastern and the other the 
western part of the city.^ M^ien the dread of a rising dimin- 
ished, the court of aldermen discharged the watch by day and 
night.^ The midsummer watch, too, it has been seen, was 
abolished by the court of aldermen."^ 

AVhen the mayor received his commission for raising and 
training a specified number of men, he assembled a court of 
aldermen in order to decide on the best means of furnishing and 
providing practice for the required quota. In 1580 the court 
decided that Mile End Fields would be the most convenient 
place to use for the training of :3,000 shot and 1,000 pike men. 
They requested that permission to use the land might be granted 
to them.^ In 1583 the lords of the council, in writing to the 
mayor and aldermen, stated that a number of complaints had 

nVriothesley. II. 15. 

*Ihi<J., '.M. 

'Ibid., 39. 

'Ibid., 28. 

'Grey Friars' Chronicle, 47. 

'Remem., 231. 



83 

been received by them regarding the condition of archery. They 
directed that a court of aldermen should take orders that the 
statute which had been established for the maintenance of 
archery be put in execution.^ 

The mayor and aldermen assembled in this court had 
control of the property belonging to the mimicipality. It was 
through their action in 1550 in agreeing to pay 1,000m. for the 
land that the liberties of Southwark came into possession of the 
city.^^ The houses on London Bridge belonging to the city 
were leased by the court to tenants. In 1579 two houses on the 
bridge had been torn down and rebuilt. Burghley wrote to the 
court of aldermen requesting that the former tenants might 
occupy the houses with but slight increase in the rent, even 
though a higher rent might be offered by others. ^^ The mayor 
in reply stated that the houses had been demolished because the 
bridgemasters had declared them unfit for occupation. The 
tenants l)eing afraid to live in them had given up absolutely 
the unexpired term of their former leases, and had rejected the 
new leases which were offered by the city authorities.^- In 1582 
Sir Francis Walsingliam intervened on behalf of a poor tenant 
of the city J. He wrote to the mayor urging that a house recently 
leased by the aldermen to some one else be restored to its former 
occupant. ^'^ 

The court had a definite mode of procedure established by 
custom regarding contests growing out of the leasing of prop- 
erty. The oldest aldermen were chosen as surveyors and were 
directed to hear the suitors in all cases of dispute, and to treat 
with them regarding the conditions belonging to their contracts. 
They then made a report to the court, which granted the leases 
accordingly.^"* 

Permission to build within the city was granted or denied 

^Remeni.. If.. 
'"Wriothesley, II. .31). 
"Rpmem., 30. 
"IMd. 
^Hhid., 170. 
"/fiirf.. 470. 



84 

by the court. A^^len Sir Thomas Gresham wished to erect the 
bourse, it was to the court of aldermen that he applied for per- 
mission. In one of Heywood's plays, where there is considerable 
reference to the building of this exchange, Gresham asks : 

''What have our honorable court of aldermen 
''Determined yet ? Shall Gresham have a place 
"To erect this worthy building to his name ?"^^ 

In 1567 a glassblower informed the queen's secretary that 
the court of aldermen had granted him permission to erect a 
house for making l^ormandy and Lorraine glass. ^"^ In 1580 
the request that a license be granted for building an enclosed 
alley, to be used for bowling in stormy weather, was refused 
because there were already three such alleys within the space of 
one-half acre of ground. Moreover, the character of the per- 
sons who resorted to the place was such that it did not warrant 
the license. It was declared that many of the poorest persons 
of the city resorted to the place, spending their time in idleness 
and their money in betting while their families were in danger 
of starvation. ^^ The request had been from Sir James Croft, 
but a letter received from him in 1582, two years later, is of a 
very different tenor. At this later date he and Walsingham 
wrote urging that the court of aldermen require the observance 
of the proclamation of Elizabeth forbidding the erection of 
buildings within three miles of the gates of the city of London. ^^ 
As the proclamation did not fulfil its ends, for new buildings 
were constantly being constructed within the city, the court 
was directed not only to ascertain the number of new houses 
built contrarv' to the proclamation, but was further directed to 
send the names of all the builders to the privy council, in order 
that they might be called before the Court of Star Chamber. ^^ 
Each alderman was commanded by the court to search his ward 

"Heywood. U Vo!/ Know Not Me, 106. 
"C. "s. P., Addenda, 1566-1570, 34. 
"Reniem.. 165. 
-"^Jhid., 41. 
^^Ihid.. 44. 



85 

for cases of overcrowding. A request received in 1596 by the 
court shov7S the control the aldermen exercised over buildings 
in the city. It was urged that license to build a corn mill 
between two arches of the bridge be granted to a miller. In 
order to further his request, it was stated that such a mill would 
be of great service to the poor.^*^ 

Connected with the oversight of buildings in the city is 
the action which was taken by the court of aldermen regarding 
the building of the great bridge at Stratford the Bow. The 
bridge being in great need of repair, assistance to aid in the 
work was asked of the city. The aldermen directed that a fund 
should be raised by collection of money in each parish. It was 
ascertained, however, that the care of the bridge belonged wholly 
to certain owners of the adjoining land. In view of this fact, 
they requested that it should be expressly stated in the record 
of the exchequer that the contribution was but voluntary,, and as 
such should not be drawn into a precedent. ^^ 

The control of property and money belonging to minor 
heirs of London citizens was in the hands of this court. The 
money remained with the chamberlain of London until suitable 
persons to whom it might be lent were found by the aldermen. 
In 1594 Sir Robert Cecil applied to the mayor for the loan of 
some money belonging to the heirs of Sir Cuthbert Buckle. The 
mayor replied that he of himself was not empowered to lend 
the money, as the privilege belonged to the court of aldermen. 
The court had already bestowed some part of the money among 
the citizens, but the remainder, £1,500, was to be reported upon 
at the next court. He, therefore, advised Cecil to write to the 
aldermen regarding the loan.-^ The day following this Cecil 
repeated his request in a letter written to both the mayor and 
aldermen. ^^ In answer to this the court replied that all the 
estate had been given out immediately in loans to prevent the 
money's remaining in the hands of two very young moii.-'' 

="'C. S. P.. 1505-1597, 325. 

'^T* em Pin.. 84. 

"IlisC. MS8. Com. Ke])t.. Salisl)nvy T'ai)ors. V. ^V^. 

-^Remem., .SI 5. 

=^TIist. MSS. Com. Kpi)t.. Salislmry Paii(n-s. V. 114. 



86 

The minor children of deceased freemen Avere regarded as 
the wards of the city, and were placed under the charge of the 
mayor and aldermen. ^^ The mayor was informed of the death 
of any freeman by the constables of the city. These officials 
were required to certify each month to the clerk of the mayor's 
court the names of any freeman who had died within his pre- 
cinct, as well as the names of his children. ^^ The common crier 
tlien summoned the widow or executor to appear before the 
court of the Lord Mayor and aldermen to bring an inventory of 
the testators estate.^^ The common sergeant then took an 
account of the orphans' estates and signed the indentures before 
they passed to the Lord Mayor and aldermen, who then gave 
them to tho chamberlain.^^ 

As guardian the Lord Mayor provided for the custody of 
the property and the marriage of the wards. In 1580 the mayor 
wrote to tho Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Lincoln and others, 
requesting that Clement Draper might have the custody of his 
Avife's child 1)y hor former husband, as Avell as control OA'-er the 
child's legacy. The mayor added that the court of aldermen 
requested that the disposition of orphans be left to them, accord- 
ing to tho laws and usages of the city.^^ In 15S1 the aldermen, 
being incorrectly informed that the Duchess of Somerset wished 
to 1)0 rolievod of tho care of hor husband's neico, a Avard of the 
city, roqno.-^tod that the child l^e sent to them at the next meet- 
ing of tlioir court at the Guildhall. As the duchess declared 
that tho statomont was untrue and that she desired to keep the 
girl with her, she Avas permitted to do so.^*' The mayor and 
the aldermen AA-ere also empoAvered to send for tho guardians of 
tho city's Avar<ls, to qnostion them regarding tlioir treatment of 
tlio children.'''' 

"Norton, in Collier's Reprints. TTI. 10; fokp. Fourth Institute. 240. 

="Stow (ed. -[(>?>?,). CST. 

"Remem., ?A?,. 

'"Lex Loixtini. ."> : r.dirs mid Customs of Tiondot). 44. 

"Remeni.. .307. 

^"Ihiit.. ."500. 

"'Jhid.. ?,M^. 



87 

Sometimes, after her marriage, an orphan had consider- 
able difficulty in obtaining her inheritance which had been 
controlled by the city during her minority. In 1579 John 
Mellors requested the privy council to write to the Lord Mayor 
in his favor for the payment of certain sums of money, rent, 
etc., due him in the right of his wife, an orphan of the city.^^ 

The second husband of a widow having charge of her 
children's estates was required to enter recognizances that he 
would pay the legacy to the chamberlain of the city. In 1598 
one Michael Aspley married the widow of William Simpson 
and was required to enter such a recognizance. As he was a 
stranger in London, he could not procure citizens to become his 
bond and had not enough ready money to discharge the legacies. 
He, therefore, urged the council to intercede for him with the 
mayor, especially as he intended to bring up the children at his 
own expense.^^ 

iiny attempt to marry a Avard of the city without permis- 
sionfrom the guardians was summarily pimished by the mayor 
and aldermen. In 1575 the privy council directed the mayor to 
examine into a complaint against one Thomas Eaton, who had 
compelled an orphan of the city to marry him. He was directed 
to punish the offender according to the laws of the city, after 
which, if he considered the city law^ insufficient for so great a 
crime, he could appeal to council, which would be glad to aid 
him in the Court of Star Chambor.'''^ Public penance at Paul's 
Cross was required of another man who had stolen an orphan 
of the city and married her at Leicester.^"^ In 1579 the queen 
appealed to the mayor in behalf of George Bargeman, who had 
unwittingly broken one of the city laws l)y marrying an orphan 
without license.^'' 

Another conspicuous function of the court of aldermen was 
its connection with the companies of the city. Cases of continu- 

"C. S. r.. 1547-1580. fi?,l. 

"'A. p. C 159.S-150a 480. 

"^Ihid., 1571-1575. 358. 

«»Hist. MSS. roiii. Rept.. Salisbury rajicrs. II. 117. 

"O. S. P., 1547-1580. 642. 



ous dispute between companies were sometimes referred by the 
mayor to it for consideration. In 1580 the Earl of Leicester 
wrote to the mayor urging that a certain Humphrey Nichols 
might be permitted to make bread according to his accustomed 
method until the dispute between the white and brown bakers 
should be settled. The mayor replied that he had referred the 
matter to certain aldermen, as the court was not meeting at that 
time it would be impossible to acquaint that body with the earl's 
request.^^ In 1582, in order that the dispute bet^veen the 
journeymen printers and the company of stationers might be 
settled, the printers petitioned the privy council to send a com- 
mission to the Lord Mayor and aldermen to hear and detennine 
the controversy.^** When the company of pe^vterers dismissed 
one of their masters he applied to the lords of the council in 
order to be reinstated. The privy council accordingly urged 
the court of aldermen to take such steps as would lead up to the 
restoration of his position.^ ^ 

The influence which the court of aldermen exercised in 
questions of disfranchisement was important. For a man to 
be admitted to the freedom of the city by sem-ice it was neces- 
sary that he should have served a freeman of London for at 
least seven years as apprentice. In 1580 Leicester wrote to the 
Lord Mayor and aldermen in behalf of one James Fowler, who, 
though he had served his master, a carpenter, as apprentice for 
seven or eight years, had been refused admittance to the city 
because his master had not taken up his freedom until the last 
two years of his service. He requested that the poor man might 
be permitted to take up his freedom in spite of that fact.'*^ It 
was probably some similar error on the part of the master that 
caused the aldermen to deprive one William Weeks of his 
franchise. Lady Dorothy Stafford, writing to the Lord Mayor 
and aldermen in his behalf, requested that, as the fault had been 
committed by the master, who had made him free, he was the 

^'Remem., 33. 

'"C. S. r., 1581-ir.90, 87. 

''Reniera., 03. 

"/?>/(?., 149. 



89 

one to be punished, while the poor man should have his freedom 
restored to him. The day following the mayor, in reply, stated 
that Weeks had not reported the case truthfully to her ; yet, 
because of her suit, the court of aldermen had agreed to restore 
him to the freedom of the city.^^ 

Persons who desired to be admitted to the freedom of the 
city seem to have made a habit of appealing to noblemen of 
rank and members of the privy oouncil to urge their suit with 
the court of aldermen. Many letters are calendared in the 
Bemembrancia in which the mayor and aldermen are requested 
to admit certain people. Of the ten letters given for the years 
1579-1580, six requests were refused, the answers of three are 
unrecorded, while one only was granted.*^ That was a letter 
from the Master of the Rolls requesting that two young men 
might be admitted to the freedom of the waxchandler's com- 
pany. In 1580 Peter Osborn wrote to the mayor and aldermen 
requesting tliat his servant be admitted by patrimony, as his 
father, Thomas Nichols, was presented in Cook's Hall, and so 
enrolled in the chamber of London, and as he had also married 
Widow Green, a grocer. 

The court of aldermen also passed acts to aid in the main- 
tenance of prices of food determined upon by the mayor. In 
1549 the court ordained that a certain number of commoners 
should be appointed to perambulate the fish markets weekly, to 
see that a just amount of fish be given to the people for their 
money.^^ In 1552 the king-'s council appeared in the Guildhall, 
where were assembled the mayor, aldermen and wardens of the 
companies. They declared to the Londoners that the prices of 
food w^ere too high in the city ; that when prices fell over all the 
realm, in London they remained stationary. The blame was laid 
to the mayor and aldermen, avIio were ordered to repair the 
matter instantly.'*^ 

Because of the hoavv fi-ost^^ of the winter of 1542 and 1543, 

"Remem., 140. 
*-rhi<l., 140. 147. 14S. 
'^^Wriotlipslpy. TI. 2^. 
**ntUl., 70. 



90 

fish was particularly dear, and because of the mortality among 
the cattle, meat was very scarce, the court of aldermen, there- 
fore, regulated the feasts which were to be given at Easter. 
According to the action taken at that time, it was declared that 
the mayor should be served with but one course, consisting of 
seven dishes, at dinner and supper, and the aldermen and sheriffs 
with but six dishes. For every dish above the prescribed num- 
ber the offender was to pay 40s.^^ It was further decreed that 
neither the mayor nor the aldennen should buy crane, swan or 
bustard for one year from the feast of Easter. In 1549 another 
feast of the mayor and aldermen was regulated by the court. 
In the new prayer book there was no especial service appointed 
for Wednesday in Whitsun week. It was, therefore, doubtful 
whether the day should be kept as a holiday or not. The court 
decided that there should be no sermon and that the feast, which 
had been regularly given by the mayor and sheriffs to the alder- 
men, should be postponed to Trinity Sunday.*^ 

One of the most important functions of the court of alder- 
men was the power it possessed with regard to appointments. 
This privilege was the source of many communications between 
the court and the privy council. The lords of the council were 
especially solicitous that those offices which yielded an income 
to the incumbent might be granted to persons of their choice. 
Among these desirable offices were many dealing with the com- 
mercial life of the city, — the ganger, the garbler, the collec- 
tor of scavage, the collector of package, the alnager and the 
measurer of linens and woolens and the measurer of sea coal 
and salt. 

In 1581 there was an attempt on the part of the Lord 
Chancellor to supersede the court in the ap]:»ointment of the 
ganger. His action brought forth a letter from the mayor 
declaring the disposition of the office to be Avholly in the hands 
of the city.'*' The lords of the council somewhat later requested 

^Wriothesley, II, 141. 
*''Ihi(l. 14. 
"'Koiiioni., 274. 



91 

the mayor to command the city gauger to refrain from meas- 
uring any sacks until such time as the president of the Spanish 
merchants could certify to him that her majesty's purveyors had 
made choice thereof. As there had been a dispute between the 
gauger's deputies and the Spanish merchants, it was requested 
that the court of aldermen should inquire into the matter and 
take steps that would prevent the same action in the future.'*^ 
Towards the close of the sixteenth century the pri^^y council 
urged the mayor to give John Cottesford the office of gauger, 
which had been taken from him by his predecessor in the 
chair.^^ 

Between 1581 and 1584 there was much discussion regarding 
the right of the court to appoint a garbler for the city. Before 
this time, in 1570, Lawrence Cookson, garbler of the city, peti- 
tioned Cecil to aid him in the execution of his duties, as some 
of the officers of the city placed obstructions in his way in 
carrying out the work of his office. He claimed that he held 
the office by legal conveyance from Anthony Wliito. On Lady 
Day a lease for twenty-one years was granted to Blase Saunders. 
The office must have been particularly desirable, for at the death 
of Saunders, in 15S1, there were three petitioners for tlie posi- 
tion — the queen, Burghley and Sir Francis Walsingham.^^ 
Burghley requested that no action be taken in the matter of 
appointing anyone to the office until the court had time to hear 
from him again, as it was his intention to be a suitor for a 
friend of his.^^ The day after Burghley's letter was received 
two letters were sent to the mayor from Sir Frnncis Wnlsingliam 
in behalf of his cousin, the widow of Blase Saunders. He asked 
that she be allowed to continue the execution of the office, as 
the lease wdiich had been granted to her husband was unex- 
pired. ''^ If the court of aldermen w^ere still determined to 
deprive her of the office, he requested that he might be heard 

^'Remem., 278. 

"A. P. C, 1596-1597, 334, 409.' 

'"Rpineiii.. 27:5. 

"Uhid.. 272. 

«/&M., 273. 



& 



92 

in defense of her title. Three days later Elizabeth, under her 
signet, sent word to the Lord Mayor asking that a lease similar 
to that granted to Blase Saunders be given to George Southwack, 
merchant tailor. ^^ Slightly over a month later the privy council 
wrote to the mayor urging that the recommendation of the queen 
be carried out. The aldermen, declaring that such a grant 
would be prejudicial to their charter, refused to grant it. ^Tiile 
the contest thus begun between the aldermen and the privy 
council was carried on during the winter and spring of the 
next year, Burghley must have withdrawn his suit, for in May, 
1582, he talked to Fleetwood, urging him to use his influence 
in getting the court of aldermen to appoint Mr. Southwack as 
earbler.^^ AYlien Fleetwood wrote to Burohlev he said that in 
speaking with the aldermen he had ascertained that but three 
were against the appointment of Mr. Southwack. At the pres- 
entation of the mayor the next day he suggested it would be a 
good time for Burghley to talk to the mayor. To the letter is 
added, by Fleetwood : "I touched somewhat the garbler's office. 
My Lord Mayor telleth me that he is very willing to help Mr. 
Southwicke. But now I find that Mr. Daniel Duchett, 'Mr. Pipe 
and Mr, Martin are the only letts. T have not spared to tell 
them my mind this day, although T have only angered them, 
yet I see they be coming over."^^ 

That his expectations were not realized is seen from the 
fact that the city records testify that on February 26, 1583, 
Thomas Saunders, grocer, was sworn garbler. About eight 
months later the widow of Thomas Saunders obtained the sanc- 
tion of the court of aldermen to set over the remainder of the 
unexpired lease to George Southwack, who was sworn into 
office October 26, 1584.^*^ 

The office of collector of scavage seems to have been almost 
as desirable as that of garbler. Tn 1594 the lords of the council 
wrote to the Lord Mayor and aldermen requesting them to 

"^Remem.. 27."». 
"Wright. /. c. II. lin. 
'•V?wW.. 174. 
"'Remem.. 273. 



93 

adinit Jolm de Cardwas to this office. They added that the 
reversion of the office had been granted to them some time 
previous. On the same day Sir T. Heneage requested the grant 
of the reversion of the office for one of his sen'ants.^' 

When the office of collector of package became vacant in 
1580, the court of aldermen was petitioned by Christopher 
Hatton for the reversion of the office for a servant of his.^^ 
The mayor answered that the appointment could not be made. 
A few months later the office in reversion after the death of 
Richard Young was granted to Robert Woodruffe, the s m of 
the mayor, Nicholas Woodniffe.^^ It was stated that Sir John 
Spencer had an old grudge against j^icholas Woodruffe, so, 
when he was elected to the mayoralty in 1594, he attempted to 
deprive Robert Woodruffe of his office, although the court of 
aldermen was opposed to the action. Richard Carmarden asked 
Sir Robert Cecil to intercede for the young man with the queen, 
as the person that the mayor contemplated appointing could not 
fill the office so well as Woodruffe. The latter had determined 
to serve the office himself instead of appointing a deputy.^" 

The question of the right to appoint the measurer of linen, 
cloth, canvas and velvet caused considerable strife in the early 
part of the sixteenth century. In July, 1535 a sign manual 
was sent to the chancellor and secretary, requiring them to settle 
the controversy between the king and the city regarding the gift 
of common meter of silk and linen cloth.^^ Writs of injunction 
were to be issued until the king's title should be disproved. A 
year later Henry VIII ordered the mayor to restore William 
Blackendale to the office of metership of cloth, which had 
recently been taken from him. He further directed that not only 
should he be restored immediately to the full possession of the 
office, but all the profits which had been collected during the 
time that he was deprived of the office be given to him.*''^ In 

"Remera.. 284. 

'^IMd.. 270. 

»»C. S. P., 1547-1580, 9. 

~Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.. Salisbury Tapers. V. 40. 

"L. F. & D., H. VIII, 8. 1026. 

"Hhifl., 10, 804; Ellis' Lrttrrs. Seconrl Series, II. 00. 



94 

1541 the king granted a patent for the metership of cloth of 
gold, velvet, silks and linen cloth to one of the clerks of the 
signet. The king's appointee brought with him an injunction, 
which he served in the court of aldermen, declaring that who- 
ever would not suffer him to exercise the metership should be 
fined 2,000ni. The chronicler adds, "This was against the 
charter of the city, for the mayor had the gift always.'"'" This 
intrusion of the king set a precedent that brought the matter 
into conflict later. In 1580 Elizabeth granted a patent to 
Edward Stafford granting to him the penalties incurred by the 
clothmakers of England and Wales.^^ About a year from that 
time Stafford received a letter from the city regarding his 
patent. The court of aldermen had considered the matter and 
had declared that, according to statutes passed during Philip 
and Mary's reign, as well as in Elizabeth's reign,^^ the search, 
survey and benefit of forfeitures had been vested in such per- 
sons as the mayor and aldermen had appointed. Moreover, the 
queen had granted to the city a charter assigning to the mayor, 
commonalty and citizens the searching, measuring, weighing and 
sealing all kinds of cloth. That this did not end the contention 
is shown by a letter received by the mayor from Burghley in 
1582. This letter gave a list of the offices in the nomination of 
the city, in which that of the metership is not included.°° 

The gift of the office of alnager was considered equally 
valuable to the city. Tn 1580 Peter Osborne requested that his 
servant, Robert ?^ichols, might be appointed to that office, as Mr. 
Parker, who held it at that time, desired to surrender it."''^ Erom 
three letters sent by Sir Christopher Hatton in the ye;ir follow- 
ing, it appears that l^ichols did not give good service in the posi- 
tion. In the letter sent on August 8 it was declared that the 
queen regarded the great abuses in cloth throughout the renlm to 
be due to the searchers and alnagers, and she urged the court of 

•nVriothesley. I, 129. 

"Renieni., (IS. 

'^St. of the Realm. 4 and 5 Philip .-ukI Mary. 5 ; 14 Elizabeth. 10. 

"'Reniem., 118. 

"Ibid., 271. 



95 

aldermen in choosing these men to be careful that they selected 
skillful and experienced persons. It was recommended that at 
the next meeting of the court lh\ Parker should be readmitted 
to the position.*'^ Again, on August 20 and September 4, 
Hatton urged the appointment of Parker. On September 15 
the mayor answered that Parker had been granted the office, 
then had requested to regrant it to a young man who had paid 
him £160 for the place. It was agreed that he should be 
replaced if he paid back the purchase money. "^'^ In 1582 the 
council recommended Francis Langley, who had long since 
received from them the grant in reversion of alnager, for the 
office. On December 9 Sir Francis "Walsingham sent a letter 
requesting the appointment of the same man.'*^ Four years 
later Walsingham was again a supplicant to the mayor and 
aldermen for the office of alnager, requesting the position for 
one John Edon."^ 

In case an alnager failed in his duty or was guilty of any 
misdemeanor, he was called before the court of aldermen and 
was required to answer for his actions. In 1581 the mayor 
displaced Edon from his position because he was known to have 
brought up his children beyond the seas in the Roman Catholic 
religion.'^- 

The aldermen a]ipointed men to the offices of meters of 
sea coal and sea salt. The ancient usage and custom of the 
city consisted in taking a sample of the coal from every vessel 
coming to London, either from above or below the bridge, and 
an account of the bulk, after which a l)ill of discharge was given. 
For the measuring there was a charge of 2d. a quarter, and for 
placing the coal in sacks the measurer charged an olabus a 
quarter."^ In 1558 there were four coal meters in London,'^'* 
but the number increased, so that in 1582 George Southwack 

"^Remeiii.. 09. 

^°Ibkl., 272. 

'"Ibid, 277. 

"C. S. P., 1581-1500. 811. 

"Reniem.. 68. 

"/?>(>/., .37.5. 

'•'\. r. C. 1.j5S-15i;0. 45. 



96 

found the income so small that he declared to Walsingham that 
it was scarcely sufficient to maintain those who exercised the 
duty. Walsingham then requested that a decree should be, 
passed by the city that no more should be admitted until, by 
death or otherwise, the number should be reduced to four.'^ 

The positions, however, must have yielded a good return 
to the holders, for not only were prominent persons of the court 
suitors in the interests of different persons, but the queen herself, 
under signet, wrote to the Lord Mayor in 1571, recommending 
Robert Pamphyn, a servitor in her wardrobe of robes, to the 
next vacancy in the office of measurer of coals.'^'"' And again, in 
1578, the lords of the council wrote to the Lord Mayor to admit 
John Hubbard to the freedom of the city and to grant him the 
office of salt meter or coal meter."' The request that all excuses 
which might tend to his hindrance be set aside could not have 
met with favor, because, in 1580, the privy council solicited, by 
command of the queen, the grant of salt or coal meter for John 
Hubbard.'''^ Two years later another letter was sent to the 
mayor and aldermen, reminding them of the fact that they had 
not complied with the queen's request in behalf of the same man, 
and directing them to grant him the office at the next vacancy."^^ 
In 1591, when the privy council was again urging the mayor to 
grant a reversion of the office of metership of coal, the mayor 
responded that he could not comply with the request, as there 
was no vacancy and he could not bind his successor to confirm 
the appointment.^*' Sir John Spencer, mayor in 1594, sold the 
office of coal meter to one Yardley, contrary to the laws of the 
city. The next year Yardley died, leaving his wife and children 
almost destitute on account of the great sums that he had paid 
for the office.®^ 

In order to facilitate shipping on the Thames, a number of 

"Remeni.. 275. 

"'76u/.. 279, 280. 

"A. r. C. ]. 577-1578. 429. 

"'Remem.. 270. 

'*/?)/<■/.. 27.5. 

»"/6/(?.. 283. 

"A. P. C, 1595-1596, 103. 



97 

water bailiffs were appointed by the city. By charter, the mayor 
had full authority over that part of the river which was near 
the city, being called the "Conservator of the Thames," but 
because of his various duties these substitutes were appointed to 
punish all encroachments on the river, to look after the fisher- 
men in order to preserve the small fry and to prevent their 
destruction by unlawful nets.^- For this purpose juries were 
appointed for the counties of Middlesex, Essex, Kent and Sur- 
rey, bordering on the Thames, and were summoned to make 
their presentments when the water bailiff wished to make inquiry 
of all offenses relative to the river.^^ 

In 1580 Elizabeth, through Sir Francis Walsingham, made 
a request that the court of aldermen grant this office to one of 
her choice. In answer to this letter the mayor informed Wal- 
singham that the election had been postponed, but, because the 
office was of considerable importance on account of the manage- 
ment of the river and service of the market, and because the 
reversion had already been granted, the court of aldermen 
besought him to speak to the queen, as they could not, without 
prejudice to the city, choose the one the queen wished in the 
place.^'* To this letter the queen replied that she consented to 
the appointment of the person having the reversionary grant.^^ 

Wlien the office of water bailiff became vacant in 1592 it 
was immediately filled, although John Dowell had been granted 
the reversion of it five years before this time. Though the privy 
council commanded the mayor and aldermen to give the office 
to him, according to his grant, they refused to yield, offering the 
man 100m. for the repair of his credit.^^ Dowell declared that 
the office was worth £100 a year, but rather than hold it with 
the dislike of the court of aldermen he agreed to accept the 
100m. and relinquish all claim to the position. The privy 
council urged the mayor and aldermen to increase the 100m. to 

"Stow (ed. 1G33), IS; Hist. MSS. Com. Kept., Salisbury Papers. II, 
520. 

^^Latcs and Customs, 461. 

''*Remein.. 10. 

^^11) id. 

*"A. r. C. ir.<.»1-l."f)2. 200. 



98 

£100 to be bestowed on the man, on account of the temperate 
course he held towards the city officials.*^ 

The court of aldermen had the appointment of certain 
persons who aided the mayor in his efforts to preserve the public 
health. When any article of food seemed impure, the court of 
aldermen appointed a number of men as searchers of it for the 
city. In 1551 thirty-one sacks of tainted hops were burned in 
Finsbury Fields by order of the court of aldermen.^^ The same 
court appointed six commissioners to be searchers of hops during 
the remainder of the year. 

In connection with the judicial affairs of the city, thei*e 
were several places in the gift of the court of aldermen. One of 
the most important of these was the common sergeant, who 
attended the mayor and aldermen on court days and gave them 
counsel on all matters of moment. ^^ That the common council, 
too, seemed to have a voice in the appointment is evident from 
some communications received from Elizabeth and her advisers 
regarding the office. The position had been held for a number 
of years by Bernard Randolph. ^^ In January, 1582, the queen 
directed that a letter be sent to the mayor, aldermen and com- 
monalty of London declaring Randolph, on account of his age 
and infirmity, to be unfit to fulfil his duties. Because of her 
great regard for the reputation of the city she recommended 
Dr. Julius Csesar as deputy for the office. She suggested that 
some of the profits of the office might still go to Randolph. Some 
time after this Leicester requested that the reversion of the office 
be granted to his servant, Richard Sutton.^^ He stated that the 
mayor and aldermen had already granted their sanction to his 
request, so his suit was that the common council would confirm 
the grant. It is evident that the city did not yield to the earl's 
request, for shortly after another letter came from Walsingham, 
reminding the mayor and aldermen of the queen's request in 

"A. p. C, 1591-1592, 521. M'l 

'^Wriothesley, II, 55. 

^^Lmvs and Customs of London, 44. 

•"Remem.. 278. 

"Ihkl, 277. 



99 

favor of Dr. Caesar. ^^ He further asked that such a yearly fee 
and pension should be granted as should be seemly for one of 
his degree. But neither to the queen's choice nor to that of 
Leicester was the position granted, for the city records show that 
Thomas Kirton was admitted common sergeant in place of Ran- 
dolph, deceased, August 15, 1583. ^"^ 

Almost as valuable as the office of common sergeant were 
the secondaryships of the counters. Each of these two men 
had charge of the writs in the sheriffs' court, and had control of 
one or the other of the sheriffs' prisons.^* Wolsey, in 1527, 
asked Henry Backers to resign the reversionary interest he had 
obtained from the m'ayor and aldermen for his son Robert. ^^ In 
1580 Sir William Condell sent a letter to the mayor and alder- 
men requesting a grant in reversion of one of the offices of 
secondary for his servant, Jasper Warren. The Lord Chan- 
cellor, in 1583, wrote to the mayor and aldermen thanking them 
for the reversionary grant made by them to George Filton, and 
urging them to admit him to the next place that should be 
vacant. ^^ After this five other letters were sent to the mayor 
and aldermen demanding that George Filton be admitted to the 
office immediately.^''^ For some time there was a contest between 
him and Andrew Mallory for the place, but after the question 
as to which should be appointed had been much discussed the 
mayor issued a declaration in favor of Filton, as "Mallory was 
of evil fame in the city and unsuited for such an important 
office. "^^ The appointment of secondaiy again led to much 
discussion in 1593-1594. A Mr. Moulton had been admitted 
to the counter of Wood Street by the consent of the court of 
aldermen through the intervention of the queen. In spite of 
this, the sheriff in charge of this prison had admitted another 

"^Remem., 279. 

^Uhid., 278n. 

"*Loirs and CvfdomR of London, 171. 

''"L. F. & D.. H. VIIT. 4, Appendix, 133. 

"Rem em.. 270. 281. 

^'JhuJ., 281. 282. 

'T. S. P., 1581-1590, 187. 



100 

person to the ofEce.^^ A month later Sir Robert Cecil sent 
another letter to the aldermen, declaring that her majesty re- 
quired them to confirm the grant which she had so often recom- 
mended. ^«° 

That the duties appertaining to the office of secondary 
might be well performed, the incumbent was expected to give 
bonds showing his good intention. -^^ ^ In 1592 the court of alder- 
men, though opposed to Robert "White, was required to admit him 
to the office, as he had received the reversion some years back. 
The aldermen, therefore, in order to deprive him of the benefits 
accruing from the position, imposed new bonds each year on him, 
which were to be paid to one of the sheriffs. These amounted to 
such large sums that it was almost impossible for the man to pay 
them. The privy council wrote to the mayor requesting that 
these bonds be withdrawn and but one bond be required of him 
which would cover the entire period of his service. -^^^ 

There were a number of less important offices that were 
likewise granted by the court of aldermen. In 1579 the privy 
council wrote to the court of aldermen that as John Sturgeon 
had received the reversion of the office of clerk of the chamber- 
lain's court in 1565, by the mayor and alderman -at that time, 
they were required to admit him at once.^^^ 

Again, in 1589, the privy council wrote to tlie mayor, alder- 
men and sheriffs regarding one Ralph Knighton, who had re- 
ceived the reversion of the office of beadleship in the Court of 
Conscience about thirteen years previous, to succeed at the 
death of William Baker, who then held the office. But, when 
the place was vacant, it had been granted to one Hills by 
unlawful means. It was requested that Knighton be given his 
just dues by appointing him to the office. ^*^^ 

The reversion of the office of common clerk, too, was fre- 

»»Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.. Salisbury Papers. IV, 380. 
^'^Ihid., 414. 

"^A. P. C, 1502-1593. 115. 
^"^IMd., 1578-1580. 316. 
">*Ibid., 158S-lf>89, 122. 



lOI 

quently granted by the court of aldermen. ^^^ This officer, who 
attended the mayor and aldermen on court days, kept the 
original charters of the city, the books, rolls and other records 
wherein were registered the acts and proceedings of the city.^**® 
Occasionally he read the proclamations sent to the city. The 
sentence of Mary, Queen of Scots, was read by the town clerk 
at four places in the city, at the Cross in Chepe, Chancery Lane, 
Leadenhall and St. Magnus' Church. ^^'^ 

The positions of city wait,^°^ common hunt,^*'^ master 
fuller in Blackwell HalV^'' master of the bridge house,^^^ 
provost marshal of Southwark,^^^ swordbearer^^^ and masters of 
the court of requests^ ^^ were also filled by the court of aldermen. 

The constant interference of tTie crown officials in the 
appointment of persons for city positions would seem on its 
face to be dangerous to the privileges of the Londoners. That 
the citizens of London felt this, appears from a letter sent from 
the mayor and aldermen to Henry VIII in answer to communi- 
cations sent by the king. In these letters Henry had stated 
that there had been composition between the city and certain 
officers of the crown regarding the appointment of officers of 
the city. The mayor replied that there had been no composi- 
tion, that it was simply owing to the fact that there had been 
intercession on the part of the crown officials for certain men, 
that the court had yielded to their choice. ^^'^ The city regarded 
its action as a concession which in no way should be taken as a 
precedent. Then, too, the frequent refusal of the city to sanc- 
tion the choice of the crown officers shows that they regarded 

"'Remem.. 31. 

^"'Laivs and Customs of London, 44. 

lo'Nichols, Progresses of Q. Elizabeth, II, 497. 

^™Remem., 275. 

^'^Ihid., 274. 

"»A. P. C, 1578-1580, 30. 

»"C. S. P.. 1540, 783. 

"»A. P. C. 1590^1597, 352. 

"»L. F. & D., H. VIII. 12, II, 15. 

"'Stow (ed. 1633). 769. 

"^L. F. & D., H. VIII. 9, 28. . 



I02 

their right of appointment as a privilege which should not be 
violated. 

The officers appointed by the court were answerable to the 
mayor and aldermen. In 1550 the Lord Mayor, by the assent 
of the court of aldermen, sent the keeper of the counter in 
>Bread Street, on account of his cruelty to the prisoners, to the 
jail of l^ewgate, where he was placed in irons. At the expira- 
tion of three days he was released of his irons, because of the 
suit of the court of aldermen, but he was required to remain in 
prison two days longer. He was then taken before the court 
of aldermen, where he was bound in recognizance in 100m. to 
observe the act of common council for the ordering of prison- 
ers.^^^ In a suit brought against a constable, in 1580, the court 
of aldermen decided that the man had done no wrong, but had 
simply fulfilled his duty.^^"^ 



Chapter VII. 



COURTS OF JUDICATURE OF MAYOR AND 
ALDERMEN. 

For judicial pui'poses there were several courts held by the 
mayor, the recorder and those aldermen who had previously 
ser\'^ed as mayors. The most important of these were the court 
of hustings, the Lord Mayor's court and the court of requests 
or conscience. They were all held in the Guildhall, where each 
court had its own specified place and day of meeting.^ The 
oldest and most important of them was the hustings court, which 
was held by right of charter granted to the city by Henry I.^ 
This privilege of holding the court was confirmed by John in 

""Wriothesley, II, 42. 
"'Remem., 265. 
'Wriothesley, II. 108. 
'Hist. Charters, 3. 



103 

1199^ and Henry III in 1268. According to Henry I's charter, 
the court was to meet once a week, on Monday. Henry III 
declared that, though the court ought to be held but one day in 
the week, if any work were left unfinished the court might be 
continued the next morning,'* From that time on it had come to 
meet twice a week, on Monday and Tuesday. The place of bust- 
ing was evidently some distance back from the council chamber, 
for when Mary, in 1554, came to speak to the Londoners regard- 
ing Wyatt's rebellion, she passed through the council chamber, 
then went up to the mayor's court and then came down to the 
place of busting,^ where the commons were assembled. More- 
over, in the election of mayor the first step was taken in the 
place of the hustings, where the common council and the livery- 
men of the companies were assembled, after which the aldermen 
and recorder retired to the council chamber.^ The court was 
held before the mayor and sheriffs, with the recorder acting as 
judge. It was here that all cases of pleas of land and common 
pleas were tried, and judgment of outlawry was given and deeds 
enrolled, wills registered and writs of error proved.'^ 

The crown officials insisted that the court should be held 
regularly. In 1582 the mayor was amerced £1,000 by the court 
of common pleas for neglecting to hold the hustings. His 
excuse was that he had been ill with a disease resembling the 
plague, and it had been decided that his attendance at the court 
would be with great risk of life. The aldermen advised him to 
confer with the recorder, who was able to give proofs of a 
similar loss of hustings due to the sickness of the mayor. He 
was further advised to repair to the court, taking with him 
letters and proofs of previous failures to hold the hustings, in 
order that he might seenro his discharge.^ That another loss of 

'Hist Charters, 11. 

*IMd., 40. 

''Wriothesley, II. 108. 

'Hist. MSS. Com. Kept.. Salishury Tapers. II. 117: Stow (ed. lG3o), 
052. 

'Coke, Fourth Institiitr. 247: Lr.r Loiidini. 100: Caltliorpe. Rcpt. of 
i<pecial Cases iovchUig Customs nvd Liberties, 84. 

'Remem.. 207. 



104 

the court might be avoided, the court of commou council, about a 
year and a half later, passed an act providing for the court in 
case of the absence of the mayor from sickness or other urgent 
occasion. In such cases any alderman who had previously acted 
as mayor might hold the court with the assistance of the recorder 
and one or both the sheriffs.^ 

The mayor's court was held on Tuesday before the mayor 
and aldermen, with the recorder acting as judge. It had cogni- 
zance of all cases arising within the city of which the Londoners 
were parties. ^*^ All suits between Londoners, all questions of 
debt which had been appealed from the sheriff's court, all 
matters of assize and the questioning of all persons suspected 
of writing incendiary literature, were tried in this court. 

Owing to the frequent change in the principal officer of the 
oity, it sometimes happened that judgments which were given 
in the mayoralty of one man were executed in that of another. 
In 1576 it seemed as if the mayor lacked zeal in carrying out 
the decisions which had been rendered by the court during the 
time of service of his predecessor. According to a judgment 
which had been given in a suit between two Londoners, one man 
was required to pay £80 to the other. The privy council had 
been informed that the execution of the judgment had been 
hindered by the present mayor. Consequently, the lords com- 
manded him either to hasten the execution or to report to them 
the reason for the delay. ^^ It was probably to prevent the delay 
which would necessarily follow the installation of the new 
mayor and the possibility of the new mayor's being more hostile 
to the privy council than the present incumbent that the lords 
of the council, in 1586, almost at the expiration of the current 
term of service, urged the mayor to "use some speade" in bring- 
ing to an end a contention between certain Londoners. ^^ 

There was considerable work attached to the mayor's court 

•Act of oomiuon council, in Sharpe Calendar of Wills, XI. 
"Coke. Fourth Institute, 247t ; Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. Ill, Appendix 
I, 212. 

"A. P. C. 1575-1577, 250. 
"77)ff/., 1589-1590, 179. 



I05 

with regard to pleas of debt. These cases might be appealed 
from the sheriffs' court to that of the mayor, when the decision 
might be altered. ^^ 

In a letter which Fleetwood sent to Burghley in 1581 he 
stated that, if the defendant requested it, cases were carried to 
the mayor's court in spite of opposition of the plaintiff. He 
added that it was advisable to have suits in this higher court, for 
there was twice as much expedition there than in the sheriffs' 
court. ^^ 

When a suit that was being heard was between citizens of 
London judgment was given in the presence of both parties. -^^ 
If, however, a citizen of another town had a complaint against a 
Londoner, the mayor summoned the defendant before him in 
order to hear his defence. It will be remembered that by charter 
the citizens of London were not required to plead outside the 
walls of the city. In 1582 the mayor and jurats of the Cinque 
Ports informed the Lord Mayor that one Hall, a fishmonger of 
London, was £4 3s. Id. in debt to Abraham Snode, of Fever- 
sham. They requested the mayor to summon Hall before him 
to examine into the matter and to compel Hall to pay the costs 
as well as the just debt.-"^® 

The privy council's hand is seen in trial of cases for debt, 
just as it is in other matters connected with the city. In 1550 
a letter was sent to the mayor and four aldermen to end a 
controversy which had existed between Thomas and John Barne 
and their debtors. ^''^ In 1552 the mayor was directed to con- 
sider a complaint against John Vandernoit, physician, and 
to do what he could to remedy his distress. -^^ A letter of com- 
plaint against a London citizen was sent to the mayor in 1554. 
It was stated that, according to rumor, John Lewis was feigning 
bankruptcy in order to avoid paying for certain goods. The 

"Coke, 1. c. 247t. 

"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept., Salisbury Papers. I. 221. 

"Rem em., 491. 

^'Thid., 489. 

"A. P. C. 1580-1 5S2. 51. 

"7&/f/.. 1552-1554, 50. 



io6 

mayor was directed to ascertain whether this were true or not 
by searching ont Lewis in his own home. If it were found to 
be true that Lewis was unable to pay, then the goods were to be 
delivered unto the persons from whom they had been pur- 
chased.^^ 

In addition to directing that certain trials be held, the 
privy council sometimes urged the delay in proceedings of other 
cases. In 1551 the mayor was requested to delay giving judg- 
ment in a certain suit, and was directed to command one of the 
principals to appear before the council. ^"^ In the same year the 
mayor was asked to stay a process between Combes and Spinola 
until the next year. It was declared that as Combes was to be 
sent on a mission outside of the realm, he would not be able to 
be present at the trial until that time.^^ 

By a writ of certiorari cases which had been judged in 
the mayor's court might be re-examined by the justices of com- 
mon pleas. In 1529 certain justices were granted commissions 
authorizing them to examine, in the presence of the mayor and 
aldennen, at the Guildhall, a judgment given in a suit before 
the said mayor and aldermen concerning a debt of 100m. ^" 
There was a similar case in 1592, when a commission of error 
was granted to the Lord Chief Justice and to two justices of 
common pleas to determine an action depending before the Lord 
Mayor of London. ^^ 

After a case had been decided in the court, the privy council 
sometimes directed the mayor to attempt to bring about some 
agreement between the debtors and creditors. In 1574 the lords 
wrote to the mayor in behalf of a Scotchman imprisoned in one 
of the counters. It was thought that the mayor by meeting 
with his creditor might bring about some composition whereby 
the man's imprisonment might be lessened.-^ Again, in 1580, 

^'A. P. C, 1554-1556, 344. 

"^lUd., 1550-1552, 235. 

"76;V7.. 384. 

^^^L. F. & D.. H. VIII, 4. 5748 (18). 

"C. S. P., 1591-1594, 178. 

="A. P. C, 1571-1575. 310. 



107 

when William Parker was in debt for a sum not exceeding £16, 
the privy council urged the mayor to call his creditors before 
him and to treat with them in their lordship's names in order 
that he might obtain an agreement by which the man could 
still retain some of his property. ^^ In 1581 the mayor, recorder, 
sheriffs and Bishop of London were appointed as commissioners 
to compound with the creditors of the poor debtors imprisoned* 
in ISTewgate, Ludgate and the two Counters. ^^ In 1586 the 
council requested the mayor to persuade the creditors of Michael 
Story to give him one year's day of payment. If they would 
not agree to this he was required to cause them to certify the 
reason for their refusal,^^ and to forbear to trouble the debtor 
with imprisonment until they should have received an answer 
to their communication. A letter of like content was requested 
of the council in 1589. The debtor asked the lords of the council 
to write to the mayor and sheriffs that the time already allowed 
him by their lordship's former letters might be extended six 
months longer. ^^ In 1596 the mayor sent word to Sir Robert 
Cecil that he had done what he could for the debtor in whose 
behalf he had written. ^^ 

According to the law of London the personal effects of a 
debtor unable to meet his obligations were seized by the creditor. 
In 1531, at the death of Thomas Mullins, his creditors detained 
the clothes belonging to him by judgment given in the Lord 
Mayor's court.^^ In 1580 the privy council informed the mayor 
that property of Richard Brackenburg had been attached for 
debt by Samuel Knolles and had been offered for sale, although 
no lawful demand had been made for the debt. The mayor was, 
therefore, directed to call the creditors before him for the pur- 
pose of ascertaining what had become of the goods.^^ If the 

='A. P. C, 1.580-1581. 247. 

=«C. S. P., 1581-1590, 8. 

"A. P. C, 1580-1587. 205. 

=«C. S. P.. 1581-1590. 584. 

"Hist. MSS. Com. Kept., Salisbury Papers. VI, 187. 

'"L. F. & D.. H. VIII. 5. 674. 

^'Remem., 484. 



io8 

creditors refused to inform him he was authorized to imprison 
them without bail. 

A large part of the time was consumed in the trial of 
persons suspected of breaking the assize. A person found guilty 
of making bread smaller than the size prescribed by the mayor 
was condemned to sit in the pillory.^ ^ Sometimes the con- 
demned had to bear the article of false weight or measurement 
about his neck while he sat on the pillory. A purveyor who 
had been declared fraudulent in his dealings was required to 
wear a string of smelts around his neck. The court had 
adjudged that the remainder of his punishment would be mutila- 
tion of the ears, but, on account of the mayor's intercession, he 
was confined to one of the prisons of London for a long period.^^ 

The court had control of persons who were guilty of uttering 
seditious words and of publishing incendiary literature.^'* In 
1595 the mayor sent to the Counter a person who had uttered 
contemptuous words against the authority of the Star Cham- 
ber.^^ The punishment of the authors of seditious books was 
frequently severe. In 1568 the mayor committed to one of the 
Counters a man who had caused an unlicensed book to be 
printed.^*" In order to prevent the circulation of a book bearing 
the title '"A Discovery of the Gaping Gulf," in which the author 
had spoken disrespectfully of the queen and the Duke of Anjou, 
the council in 1579 commanded the mayor to summon before 
him the masters and wardens of the companies. After they 
had received the directions of the mayor, the masters and 
wardens of each company called a meeting of their company and 
read the queen's proclamation concerning the book. Each 
person having a copy of the book was directed to bring it imme- 
diately to the company, so that it might be delivered to the 
mayor. All persons possessing copies were required to give the 
names of the persons from whom they had obtained them.^'^ 

"Wriotbesley, II. 35, 71. 
"Hay ward, ?. c, 29. 
'^C. S. P.. 1547-1580. 417. 
^'lUd., 1.595-1507. 03. 
^"Ihid.. 1547-1580, 320. 
''Remem., 29. 



109 

"When unlicensed books or those containing matter of state were 
printed the mayor imprisoned the printer as well as the author.^^ 

Persons who refused to abide by the decisions of the court 
were further punished by the mayor. In 1589, when the privy 
council urged the mayor to hasten to give judgment in a certain 
suit, it was added, "If either of the parties refuse to stand to 
such order as you shall so set down, then you are to proceed 
further with them, or either of them, for their contempt as you 
shall think meet"^^ In 1577 the mayor was directed by the 
council to release a person whom he had imprisoned because of 
his refusal to carry out the decisions of the court, on condition 
that he gave bonds not to disturb the possessions of the com- 
plainant.'*'^ 

The couri sometimes acted in conjunction with the national 
courts. In 1551 the mayor was directed by the privy council 
to take sureties of £500 from Sir Thomas iN^ewneham to appear 
before the Court of Star Chamber.^ ^ In the same year the 
warden of the fleet was directed by the council to conduct the 
warden of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, whom he was hold- 
ing as a prisoner, to the mayor of London. The mayor was 
then to bind him in £200 to appear before the council from day 
to day during the next term, and in the meantime not to return 
to his college.^^ In 1552 one John Kell was bound before the 
mayor in recognizance of 1,000m. to appear before the lords 
of the council to answer a certain complaint made against him 
by one of the Earl of Pembroke's servants.'*^ 

Besides taking recognizances for appearance before the lords 
of the council, the mayor's court sometimes carried out the 
sentences of the Court of Star Chamber. In 1580 the mayor 
was directed to release a person who had been judged by the 
Court of Star Chamber to stand upon the pillory and to be 

''Hist. ]\rSS. Com. Rept. Salisbury Papers, YI. 264; Wriglit, 1. c. 
II. 463. 

'•A. P. C, 1589-1590, 179. 
"lUd., 157.5-1577. 375. 

"7h/r/., 1.^10-1552. 316. 

"lUd., 317. 

«/&if7., 457. 



no 

committed to Newgate for six mouths. At the expiration of 
three months the council agreed that his punishment might be 
remitted, provided he gave bonds for his good behavior to the 
mayor. "^^ 

The court had no authority over officers of the crown. 
Even though these might be living in London, they were free 
from arrest and trial by the officials of London. In 1566 the 
privy council sent word to the mayor that, although officers at 
arms were free from arrest in London, they had been informed 
that certain officers had been arrested within the liberties of 
the city. These were ordered to be released, but any person 
having suit against them could be satisfied by appealing to the 
Lord Marshal's court."* ^ In 1571 the queen directed the mayor 
to refrain from dealing in the courts in any suit appertaining 
to the admiralty court.*^ In 1584 Fleetwood wrote to Burghley 
that he was unable to proceed with a certain case because the 
persons who had created the disturbance were officers of the 
guard. ■*' In 1595 the mayor wrote to Burghley that when he 
discovered that a certain man who had been imprisoned on 
account of disorderly behavior was a yeoman of the guard he 
released him. He urged that fitting punishment be admin- 
istered to him by the council.*^. 

Growing out of the mayor's court was another court which 
was established in 1518 by the common council. In that year 
an act was passed authorizing the mayor and aldermen to 
appoint every month two aldermen and four discreet commoners 
as commissioners to hold a court twice a week, Wednesday and 
Saturday, in the Guildhall.^ ^ The body was to be known 
as the court of requests or court of conscience, and was 
to have cognizance of all cases of debt which did not exceed 
40s. ^'^ In 15Y4 Leicester wrote to the mayor asking him to 

"Remeni., 204. 

*»C. S. P., Addenda, 1566-1579, 10. 

*'Ihi(J.. 1547-1580. 

"Wright, 1. c, II, 242. 

^'Remeni.. 451. 

'"Stow (ed. 10,33), 769. 

''nVriglit, II, 166. 



Ill 

intercede for one Philpot. Accordingly, the mayor, with six 
aldermen, wrote to the masters of the court of requests urging 
them to help the poor man and his tenants.*^ ^ That the creation 
of this court considerably lessened the work of the Lord Mayor's 
court, and that it was regarded as a boon by the officials of 
London, is evident from the extension of its powers that was 
made from time to time.^^ 

The mayor and those aldermen who had previously held 
the office of mayor were, by the grant of Edward IV, justices 
of the peace for the city of London.^^ This privilege was care- 
fully guarded by the officials of London. At a time when it 
seemed as if the rights of the city in this respect might be 
infringed, the mayor, in a letter to Burghley, declared that the 
queen's ancestors had granted to the city those privileges by 
which the mayor, the recorder and those aldermen who had 
passed the chair were justices of the peace for the county of the 
city of London in as ample a manner as any other justice of the 
peace of the realm. ^^ 

In case of riots or concerted risings on the part of the Lon- 
doners, the mayor and the aldermen went out to suppress the 
disorder. After the people were subdued the perpetrators of the 
disorder were usually, by the mayor's order, confined in one of 
the Counters.^^ 

The opposition of the citizens to the foreigners in London 
is seen by the frequent rising of the people against them. In 
addition to the rising on "Evil May Day,"^^ there were two 
other attacks on the French — one in 1525^'^ and the other in 
1586.^^ On the latter date the rising was against the Dutch 
as well as the French. In 1558 an assault was made upon the 

"C. S. r.. Addenda, 1.566-1579. 473. 
^^Pririlrriia Lniuliiii. TiDS. 

''^Charter of Edward IV. in Hist. Charters, 80. 
"Remem.. 43. 

■•■V//V.,/ Friarx' rjiroiiirlr. 71 : ITist. MSS. Com. Rept, Salisbury 
Papers. V, 240 ; iJrid.. XV Rept.. Appendix V. 94. 
'"Hall. .'SS: Grey Friars. ,",0. 
"Hall. 720. 
"'Ellis Letters. First Series. IT. 306. 



112 

house of the ambassador of the king of Swevia,^^ and in 1582 
the Spanish ambassador^" was attacked as he rode through the 
streets of the city. In each of these cases the instigators of the 
attacks were severely punished by the mayor and aldermen. The 
privy council directed the mayor to administer whatever punish- 
ment he should think advisable to the offenders against the 
Swedish ambassador in the presence of some delegate of the 
injured man. 

The Lord Mayor, the recorder and those aldermen who had 
passed the chair were also justices of oyer and terminer. This 
had been granted to the citizens by charter of Edward IV.*^^ 
The mayor was usually appointed as chief of the commission, 
although one or more of* the most prominent of the national 
judges were placed on the commission with him.^^ In the trial 
of Thomas Culpepper, in 1541, the mayor presided, with the 
Lord Chancellor sitting at his right hand and the Duke of 
Norfolk at his left hand.^^ 

As justices of jail delivery, too, the mayor and aldermen 
acted in conjunction with prominent men of the time.^'* If the 
suspected person in a murder trial pleaded guilty, the jury was 
not summoned. One of the popular dramas of Elizabeth's reign 
contains a scene in which persons suspected of murdering a 
London citizen are tried before the mayor and aldermen. After 
the prisoner declares himself guilty, the Lord Justice speaks, 
"Mr, Sheriff, ye shall not need any jury to pass upon him, for 
he hath pleaded guilty and stands convicted before the bar."^^ 

Many cases of treason were brought for trial to the Guild- 
hall. In the eighth year of Henry VIII, on May 4, the persons 
principally concerned with the uprising of May 1 against the 
French were arraigned at the oyer and terminer at Guildhall.®^ 
The charge was treason, because a truce had been made between 

''^A. P. a, 1558-1560, 21. 

"Hist. MSS. Com. Rept.. Salishnry Papers. II. ni,*?. 

•^Historical Charters, 80. 

"^Wriothesley. I. 131. 176. 177 : II. 7. 12. 13. 106. 

"^Ihid., II. 106. 131. 

"L. F. & D., H. VIII. I, 1942. 

^^Warning for Fai7- WomSfi. Act. II. 315. 

"•"Hall, 589. 



113 

England and France. The trial of the Duke of Buckingham 
took place in the same hall.^" In 1747 Henry Howard was 
arraigned before this court, with the Lord Mayor acting as 
chief. ^^ In 1553, November 13, Archbishop Cranmer, Guilford 
Dudley, Lady Jane Gray, Ambrose and Harry Dudley were 
also arraigned here.*^^ It was not until the next January that 
Robert Dudley was brought from the Tower to the Guildhall 
for trial.'^*^ In 1594 Dr. Lopez was tried for treason in the 
Guildhall before the Lord Mayor, the Earl of Essex and Lord 
Howard."^ ^ 

When persons suspected of treason were tried in the Tower, 
the Lord Mayor, with the aldermen and certain men of the 
principal crafts was present. Thus, in 1536, at the arraig-n- 
raent of Anne Boleyn and Lord Rochefort, the Lord Mayor, 
aldermen and eight men of the twelve principal crafts sat in the 
council chamber."^ 

This then represents the part played by the mayor and the 
aldermen in the judicial life of the city. It does not, however, 
represent the entire civil and criminal jurisdiction of London, 
for, in addition to the courts here enumerated, there were those 
tribunals which were held before the other officials — the sheriffs 
and the recorder — whose work was not considered in this studv. 



Chaptek YIII. 

THE CITY AND THE COURT. 

In examining the one hundred and eighteen years which 
constitute the entire period of the Tudor rule, for the purpose 
of ascertaining any change in the relations between the crown 

"L. F. & D., H. VIII. 3. 1284. 

^Grey Friars' Cbroniele. 5.3 : Wriotbesley. I, 177. 

^Chronicle Q. Jane and Q. Mary, 34. 

■">Il)id., 3.5. 

"C. S. r.. 1591-1504. 448. 

'-Grey Friars' Clironiele. .38 : Wriotliesley. 30. 



114 

officials and those of London, one is struck by the fact that 
there is a marked increase in the number of communications 
which passed from one body to the other during the later years 
of the nile than in the earlier. This would seem to imply, at 
lirst glance, that there was a closer connection between the city 
and the court at this time. There are, however, two other cir- 
cumstances which had much to do with this enlarged corre- 
spondence, and which consequently te^nd to diminish the impres- 
sion that a greater interest was manifested on the part of the 
royal officials for the city at one time than at another. In tlie 
first place, a new official, the Remembrancer, was added to the 
municipality in 1577. A part of his duty consisted in preserving 
the official letters and other documents sent to the city, as well 
as a copy of every letter sent by the London officers. Thus it 
is that for the later years we have additional sources of informa- 
tion. For the earlier years, until the Repertory — the record 
of the proceedings of the court of aldermen — is published, the 
Calendar of State Papers and the Acts of the Privy Council 
constitute the principal means by which we can become familiar 
with the correspondence between the two bodies. After the year 
1577 the increase may be due, not so much to the number of 
letters actually written, as to the number now accessible. 

But, aside from this consideration, that more letters did 
pass between the city and the court for the later period is largely 
due to the personality of two men conspicuous in the life of the 
two places. Lord Burghley, active and interested in the least 
detail regarding the welfare of the kingdom, had an equally 
active associate in Fleetwood, the loquacious recorder of Lon- 
don. The letters, or rather diaries, sent by the latter to the 
great statesman are filled with matter of interest pertaining to 
the governmental and social life of the city. Had there been 
men of like temperament at the head of affairs in the city and 
the kingdom, it is probable that there might have been an equilly 
large number of letters written for the earlier as for the later 
period. 

During the century and a quarter Ave are considering there 



1^5 

is a growth of independence on the part of the citizens of Lon- 
don. This is especially noticeable in their actions with regard 
to the loans which were demanded by the Tudor sovereigns. 
With the exception of the amicable loan of 1525, the demand 
of which was met with so much opposition, not only in London, 
but throughout the country, that it was consequently withdrawn, 
when money was desired by either Henry VII or VIII, the 
citizens, though grumbling, usually made the desired grant with- 
out delay. Towards the end of Elizabeth's reign, however, the 
city refused to grant any money to the queen without the 
security of carrack goods, or the promise of income from the 
export and import duties on all goods passing through London. 

The change in the attitude of the crown towards offending 
officers of the city shows that the increase in the independent 
spirit of the people was recognized by the court officers. The 
high-handed manner in which Henry VII extorted money from 
the rich middle class brought about much complaint from certain 
aldermen and other persons prominent in London. The persons 
guilty of such misdemeanors were instantly imprisoned by the 
order of the king. From 1495 to 1509 Sir William Capell, 
alderman, who was sheriff in 1504 and mayor in 1503 and 
1509, was frequently in conflict with the king.^ On the latter 
date he was sent to the Tower, after having been imprisoned 
first in the counter and later in the sheriff's house. There he 
was compelled to remain until the death of Henry, when, ''with 
many others, he was freed." It does not appear from the chron- 
icle that these men were given a trial before imprisonment. In 
Henry VIII's time the mayor and aldermen were reprimanded 
for the insurrection which occurred on the Evil May Day, but 
other than that they were not required to suffer any punish- 
ment. At the time of the rebellion of Essex, the sheriff. Sir 
Thomas Smith, who was suspected of being in league with the 
earl, was, after his trial by the court officials,^ handed over to 
the court of aldermen for punishment.^ 

'Fabyan. Chronicle, 685, 689, 690. 
»C. S. P., 1589-1601. 570. 
^Camden, Britannia, 609. 



ii6 

In the same way the attitude of the city regarding the 
royal interference in municipal elections points to this increase 
in the spirit of independence. Elizabeth's withdrawal of a suit 
on two separate occasions regarding appointment to office in 
the city is in striking contrast with a step taken by her father at 
an earlier period. The citizens in 1535 attempted to deprive 
an appointee of the king of the office of measurer of cloth, 
claiming that by right of charter the privilege belonged to them. 
The overbearing mastery of Henry VIII is apparent when he 
insisted that not only should the man be reinstated, but that all 
the profits of the office during the time he was deprived of it 
should be restored to him, and that a heavy fine should be 
placed on those who should hinder him in the fulfilment of his 
duties. In 1580, though Elizabeth insisted upon granting the 
proceeds of this office to one of her choice, she yielded a point 
to the city by withdrawing a request that a certain man be 
granted the office of water bailiff. The final victory of the city 
in the contest waged between the court of aldermen on one side, 
and Lord Burghley, Lord Walsingham and Elizabeth on the 
other, from 1580 to 1583, shows plainly how strong was the 
effort made by the Londoners to hold what they believed to be 
their privileges. Finally, the mild tone of the two letters sent 
by the privy council to London in the closing years of the six- 
teenth century, regarding the office of ganger, reveals the fact 
that the court was aware of the spirit prevalent in the city. 
These, as well as the positive acts of refusal on the part of the 
court of aldermen to agree to appoint persons chosen by the 
crown, are indices of that tenacity of purpose which became so 
conspicuous a characteristic of the Londoners of the succeeding 
century, and point to their city as the school in which was taught 
the principle of resistance which became so great an indication 
of the spirit of the Englishmen of the Stuart period. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



Chronicles. 



London Chronicle during the Reigns of Henry VII and VIII. 
Edited, 1859, by Clarence Hopper. Camden Society, vol. 73 
(Camden Miscellany, IV). Brief statement of affairs, chiefly 
social, in the city. 

Wriothesley, Charles A Chronicle of England during the 
Reign of the Tudors. 2 vols. Ed., 1875, by W. D. Hamilton, C. S., 
new series, vols. 11 and 20. Extends from 1485-1559. After the 
first eleven years of Henry VIII's reign it is particularly valuable 
as a source for London history. The author, a cousin of Thos. 
Wriothesley, the chancellor, lived in London and recorded matters 
of interest as they were transpiring. 

Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London. Ed., John Gough 
Nichols, 1852. C. S. 53. The author, living in one of the busy 
parts of the city, was a witness of many important events, which he 
recorded without prejudice. 

The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary. 
Ed., J. G. Nichols, 1850. C. S. 48. Interesting accounts of affairs 
connected with the unfortunate Lady Jane Grey. Full account 
of the action of the city officials regarding the rebellion of 
Wyatt. 

Fabyan, Robert. The New Chronicles of England and 
France. Second edition. Ed., Ratsell, 1533, carries events to death 
of Henry VII. Good account of the life in the city. Author an 
alderman of Farringdon Ward Without, and sheriff in 1493. 

Hall, Edward. The Union of the\ Two Noble Families of 
York and Lancaster. Printed 1542, extends to death of Henry 
VIII. Particularly strong in revealing contemporary feeling, 

(ii7) 



ii8 

especially the hatred existing between the citizens and Wolsey. 
Detailed account of the rising of the Londoners against the for- 
eigners in 1518. 

Grafton, Richard. A Chronicle at Large, Mere History of 
the Affairs of England. 1569. Copy of Hall, with a continuavion 
to 1558. Valuable list of mayors and sheriffs to 1558 

HoLixsHED, Raphael. Chronicles of England, Scotland and 
Ireland. Carried his chronicle of England to 1577 whence it was 
continued by John Hooker to 1587. Information regarding London 
but slight. 

Speed, Johx. History of Great Britain to Reign of King James. 
1611. Very little of value for London, except during the time that 
Lady Jane Grey was in the city. 

Stow, Johx. The Abridgment of the English Chronicles, 
continued to end of 1610 by Edward Howes, 1611. Condensed 
compilation, containing little that is new regarding London. 
Mayor and sheriffs for each year are given, which supplements the 
list of Grafton. 

Stow, John. Historical Memoranda and Contemporary Notes 
of Occurrences in reign of Queen Elizabeth. Ed., James Gairdner, 
1880. C. S., N. S., 28. Short but interesting accounts of the customs 
of the city. 

Camden, Wm. Annals of the Reign of Elizabeth. 1625. Full 
account of the conspiracy of Essex. 

Hayward, John. Annals of Elizabeth. Ed., John Bruce. 
C. S. 7, 1840. Account of the first four years of Elizabeth's reign, 
adds some slight information. 

Records. 

Munimenta Gildhallae Londoniensis. Vol. I, Liber Albus. 
Ed., H. T. Riley. R. S. 1819-1862. 

Liber Albus. Translated H. T. Riley, 1861. 

This book, "the Grand Repository of the archives of the city," 
was compiled in 1419 by John Carpenter, Common Clerk. 
Although collected at so early a date, the records are invaluable 
for the study of London at all later periods. 



119 

Historical Charters and, Constitutional Documents of London. 
Ed., W. De G. Birch, 1887. Copies of the city charters con- 
tained in the Guildhall, arranged chronologically. Translated. 

Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III and 
Hennj VII. 2 vols., R. S. 1864. Ed., J. Gairdner. Of some slight 
value for the history of London. 

Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry 
VIII. Ed., J. S. Brewer. 1862-1901. 

Calendar of State Papers, Foreign and Domestic. Ed., Record 
Commission, 1856. 

Acts of the Privy Council of England. In progress 1834-1905-. 
29 vols. Vol. edited 1905 contains Acts of year 1599. 

These three last mentioned publications are replete with 
information concerning London. Almost every page contains 
something of importance and interest. 

Statutes of the Realm. 1235-1713. 9 vols. Ed., Record Com- 
mission, 1810-1828. 

Calendar of Wills in the Court of Hustings. 2 vols. Ed., R. R. 
Sharpe. 1889. Valuable introduction dealing with the early 
history and the development of the Court of Hustings. In a study 
like the present one little use can be made of the material collected 
in the volumes, except for finding the financial standing of 
individuals already known by name. 

Remembrancia. Analytical Index to series of records, 1559- 
1664, in the library of the Guildhall. Ed., W. H. Overall, Lil^ra- 
rian, and H. C. Overall, Town Clerk's Office. 1878. Calendar of 
documents, arranged alphabetically. Of great value in the study 
of London. 

Parliamentary Papers. Vol. 359. Second Report of the Com- 
missioners Appointed to Inquire into Municipal Corporations. 1837. 
This report for London and South wark is very valuable inasmuch 
as certain acts passed by the Common Coimcil and the Court of 
Aldermen at earlier periods are printed in cxtcnso. On the other 
hand. The Report of the Commissioners on the State of the Corpora- 
tion of London, in 1854, vol. 175, is of little value. It consists of 
the report of the evidence taken from the city officials, and has little 
reference to documentary evidence. 



120 



Contemporary Narratives. 

Lord Mayor's Pageants. Percy Soc, vol. 10. Ed., Fred W. 
Fairholt, 1843. Collection of descriptions, in prose and poetry, of 
the mayor's procession through the city. Contains the valuable 
description by Wm. Smith of the election and pageant of the 
mayor in 1575. The same description, slightly condensed, is also 
found in Drake, Nathan, Shakespeare and his Times. 2 vols. 
1817. 

A Relation of England. C. S. 37. Ed. and translated by 
Charlotte A. Sneyd. 1847. An account of the manners and customs 
of England, written by an Italian, evidently one of the members 
of the ambassador's suite, about 1496-1502. Valuable for the 
customs of London. 

England as Seen by Foreigners. Ed., Wm. B. Rye, 1865. 
Collection of descriptions by foreign merchants and travelers in 
England. The account by Paul Hentzner is particularly valuable 
for London. 

Stow, John. Survey of London. Written 1598, first pub- 
lished 1603. Reprint of this edition 1842, by Wm. J. Thomas, 
Sec. Camden Soc. Re-edited with modern spelling in Carisbrook 
Library by Ed., Henry Morley, 1890. The fountain head of infor- 
mation concerning manners and customs of Londoners. Valuable 
descriptions of the wards and public and private buildings of the 
city. 

Enlarged in 1618 by Anthony Munday and again in 1633 by 
Humphrey Dyson. (See Article Stow in Diet. Natl. Biog.) This 
last edition is of great value in working up any part of the govern- 
ment. This edition contains a good working index, which is lacking 
in the editions of Thomas and Morley. 

An interesting adverse criticism of the work, written in 
December, 1633, shortly after the appearance of Dyson's edition 
will be found in Hist. MSS. Com. Rept. XII, App. I, p. 38. 

Harrison, Wm. Anthony. Elizabethan England. 1577-1587. 
Written as first book in Holinshed's Chronicle. Ed., Fred. J. 
Furnivall, 1877. New Shakespeare Soc. contains copy of Norden's 
map. Otherwise of but little value for London. 



121 

Camden, Wm. Britannia. 1586, Latin; and 

Speed, John. England, Wales, and Scotland and Ireland, 
abridged, with the history of things worthy of memory, from a far 
larger vohime done by John Speed, London, 1672; and 

John Norden, Speculum Britanniae, an historical de- 
scription of Middlesex, 1593, contain some slight information. 

Two contemporary maps, Civitas Londinune, by Ralph Agas, 
in reign of EUzabeth, drawn c. 1561-1576, pubhshed in facsimile 
by Wm. H. Overall, librarian to corporation of London, 1874; and 

Joannes Norden, Anglus descripsit, anno 1593, New Sh. Soc, 
1877, preceding Harrison's Decsription of England are of great 
value in determining the extent of the wards and in locating 
buildings and places of importance 

Dramas. 

Many of the Elizabethan dramas throw light upon the life in the 
city. A few of the plays in which the life of the apprentice is 
shown are 

Beaumont and Fletcher, Knight of the Burning Pestle. 

Dekker, The Shoemaker's Holiday. 

Green's Tu Quoque. 

Massinger, New Way to Pay Old Debts, and 

Middleton, Trick to Catch the Old One. 

The Tragedy of Sir Thomas More also gives a picture of the 
Lord Mayor's Court 

Haywood // You Know Not Me You Know Nobody, shows the 
influence of the Court of Aldermen. 

Legal Writings. 

Coke, Sir Edward. Fourth port of the Institute of the Lairs of 
England, concerning the jurisdiction of the courts, 1644. The Ijasis 
for the greater part of later legal writings. Slight inaccuracy con- 
cerning the numlx^r of wards. 



122 

SECONDARY. 
Legal Writings. 

BoHUN, Wm. Privilegia Londine, or the Rights, Liberties, 
Privileges, Laws and Customs of the city of London. 1702. 

City Liberties, or the Rights and Privileges of Freeman — 
abridgment of the laws, charters, by-laws and customs of London. 
1732. 

Laws and Customs, Rights, Liberties and Privileges of the City 
of London. 1765. 

Emerson, Thomas. Courts of Loiv of the City of London. 1794. 
Author was one of the four attorneys connected with the Lord 
Mayor's Court. 

Pulling, Alexander. Treatise on the Laws, Customs, and 
Usages and Regulations of the City of London. 1842. 

The above mentioned books, \\Titten from a legal point of 
view, are of great value in any study dealing with the government 
of London. They are, however, copied largely from Dyson's 
edition of Stow's Survey and from Coke's Fourth Institute. 

Historic Accounts. 

Besant, Walter. London, 1892. An interesting account of 
the social life of the city. Little reference to sources. 

. London in the Time of the Tudors. 1904. Rich 

in quotations from sources and in contemporary pictures. Chapters 
on the Social Life and on the Apprentices are particularly interesting. 
The reproduction of the panoramic map of London made by 
Anthony Van den Wyngaerde would have been more instructive 
if it had not been broken up into three sections. 

Drake, Nathan. Shakespeare and his Times. 1817. Number 
of quotations from the sources. 

Herbert, Wm. History of the Twelve Livery Companies of 
London, principally compiled from their grants and records. 2 vols. 
1836. Valuable 

LoFTiE, W. J. History of London. 2 vols. 1884. Contains 
many maps and illustrations. 



123 

LoFTiE, W. J. London, Historic Towns, 1887. Largely de- 
voted to the treatment of the growth of institutions. Some inac- 
curacies. A condensation of the History. 

Maitland, Wm. History of London from its Foundation by the 
Romans. 1739. Modeled on later editions of Stow's Survey. 

Merewether and Stephens. History of the Boroughs. 
3 vols. 1835. Examination of the charters granted to different 
boroughs and cities by various sovereigns. Valuable. 

Norton, Geo. Commentaries on the History, Constitution 
and Chartered Franchise of the City of London. 1828. Examination 
of the charters. Many quotations from Elizabethan dramatists. 

Sharpe, Reginald R. London and the Kingdom. 1894. Of 
great value. Author had access to the city records, much of the 
information is drawn from unpublished archives, such as the Letter 
Books, the Repertory and the JournaL Written chronologically, so 
that the growth and development of institutions is not apparent. 

Simpson, W. Sparrow. St. Paul's Cathedral and Old City 
Life. 1894. Contains copies of letters and documents. 

Stephenson, Henry Thew. Shakespeare's London. 1905. 
Follows Stow closely. 

Wheatley and Cunningham. London, Past and Present. 
3 vols. 1891. Additions made by H. B. Wheatley to Handbook of 
London by Peter Cunningham. A valuable cyclopedia. 

I have not attempted in the foregoing list to give anything like 
an exhaustive account of the books dealing with London in the 
Tudor period. I have simply named those works which have been 
of service to me in my study of the Lord Mayor and aldermen. 
The sameness of many of the secondary books is due to the fact that 
the authors have largely followed Stow and Maitland, to the exclu- 
sion of other sources, in their endeavor to picture London of Shakes- 
peare's day. 



019 818 232 1 



i 



ACKNOWLEDG^^rENT. 

It is a pleasure to acknowledge ray indebtedness to Pro- 
fessor Edward P. Cheyney, at whose suggestion this study was 
undertaken, and to thank him for his advice, encouragement 
and kindly interest. 



C124) 




f dtc(^ rz^i/^^ 



■X 




CL 



'-'Wisusiias^^^ 



019 818 232 1 



